# So is Nash gone?



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I haven't really been following the situation that closely, but I am under the impression that Steve Nash will not be a Phoenix Sun next year. Am I correct? Where do you guys realistically see him going? Where would you want him to go? Is there any chance of keeping him?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I believe so. Hard to believe he signs another deal to win 35 games a year on the way out.

Not sure where he might go though. Don't know how realistic New York is, Portland will be after him, Indiana would be nice.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

He's gone. The perfect landing spot for him is Atlanta if he is willing to play for the MLE. If he is looking for more money than that, I'd like to see him in Indiana or back in Dallas (if they strike out on Deron Williams).


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I would *love* Nash here in Atlanta. He really is exactly what they need at this point. Teague and Johnson have proved incapable of running a high level NBA offense and guys like Smith and Horford would benefit immensely from Steve's presence. He is probably only going to be a factor for another year or two tops, but in that window I believe he could make this Hawks team finally play to their potential.

Indiana would be fun as well.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I just can't see him going to Atlanta for some reason


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I can't really either. I do have a good feeling about Indiana's chances, though.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

No way he ends up with the Hawks. If he goes to any teams in the East, it'll be Indiana or Miami in my opinion. I have a feeling his playing days on the West Coast are over.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Fairly certain he is gone. He has been quoted as saying he wont be back barring serious upgrades to the roster. Other than that he has kept this whole situation close to the vest. I cant see him going anywhere but an already high quality team via sign n trade.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I don't think he'll go to Miami either though.


----------



## ~Styles~ (May 1, 2006)

I'd like him to go Indiana....good situation for him IMO. While we're on the subject don't you think he's been ridiculously underrated on the internet and elsewhere alot after the 2-time MVP backlash. Hell of a career.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I don't really think he's that underrated. People generally regard him as a top 10 point guard of all time, and some would go as far as calling him top five. He didn't deserve either of those MVPs but it's not his fault the media is stupid.

Hell of a career indeed.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Who's arguing he's top 5? He's not better (in my opinion) than Magic, Oscar, Isiah, Stockton or Kidd.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Basel said:


> Who's arguing he's top 5? He's not better (in my opinion) than Magic, Oscar, Isiah, Stockton or Kidd.


He's not touching Magic, Oscar, or Thomas. Kidd and Stockton are both certainly arguable. I don't know if I would agree, but that would not be an outlandish thing to say. 

I would actually take Nash in his prime fairly easily over Stockton is his prime. Stockton's longevity definitely muddies things but I don't think that Stockton ever had the impact that Steve did from '05-'07. 

Depending on the rest of my team I would strongly consider taking Nash over Kidd as well. People seem to forget that Steve is statistically speaking one of the best shooters of all time.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Basel said:


> Who's arguing he's top 5? He's not better (in my opinion) than Magic, Oscar, Isiah, Stockton or Kidd.


You could make the case that Oscar was a combo guard, or just a guard in general, and not actually a point guard. I'm not going to have that argument, but if someone was so inclined they could put together a coherent case.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Luke said:


> He's not touching Magic, Oscar, or Thomas. Kidd and Stockton are both certainly arguable. I don't know if I would agree, but that would not be an outlandish thing to say.
> 
> I would actually take Nash in his prime fairly easily over Stockton is his prime. Stockton's longevity definitely muddies things but I don't think that Stockton ever had the impact that Steve did from '05-'07.
> 
> Depending on the rest of my team I would strongly consider taking Nash over Kidd as well. People seem to forget that Steve is statistically speaking one of the best shooters of all time.


Nash may have been the better shooter but that's all he has on Kidd (and even then, Kidd finally found a shot in the second half of his career, though still not as good as Nash's). Kidd's bigger, a much better defender (by a wide margin) and a much better rebounder (also by a wide margin). And if you want to look at assists, they're fairly even (Nash is 9th all-time in APG while Kidd is 8th).


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

As for Stockton, I think you're forgetting how great he was (while also being very good defensively). He was better than Nash, even if you compare both in their primes.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Luke said:


> I don't really think he's that underrated. People generally regard him as a top 10 point guard of all time, and some would go as far as calling him top five. He didn't deserve either of those MVPs but it's not his fault the media is stupid.
> 
> Hell of a career indeed.


62-20 PHX team that finished almost last yr the before. He deserved that first one. And he got the 2nd because of what he did with no Amare.

Just because he's not a "superstar" shouldn't matter or the best player. It's MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. Sick of you elitists and I'm not even that big of a Nash fan.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

I have no idea where the best place for Nash is. I could see him on anyone of those teams being mentioned though.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Dissonance said:


> 62-20 PHX team that finished almost last yr the before. He deserved that first one. And he got the 2nd because of what he did with no Amare.
> 
> Just because he's not a "superstar" shouldn't matter or the best player. It's MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. Sick of you elitists and I'm not even that big of a Nash fan.


I agree here, except that I tend to favor the 2nd MVP more than the first. Seriously is there one player who has been relevant for any team other than Nash since that team? I'll give you Marion, but he was never the same after Nash, and it is widely known that he is one of the best 3rd bananas over the last 15 years.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Basel said:


> Nash may have been the better shooter but that's all he has on Kidd (and even then, Kidd finally found a shot in the second half of his career, though still not as good as Nash's). Kidd's bigger, a much better defender (by a wide margin) and a much better rebounder (also by a wide margin). And if you want to look at assists, they're fairly even (Nash is 9th all-time in APG while Kidd is 8th).


Are rebounding and man defense really that important from a point guard though? Sure it's a plus but it doesn't change the fact that Jason Kidd the scorer, not the distributor was noticably easier to defend than a prime Nash.He was named Ason Kidd for a reason. Do you think that Rondo is a better point guard than Deron Williams because he is a better defender and rebounder?

And Stockton's prime is extremely overrated; he played in Sloan's offense that is notorious for high assist totals and had the fortune of playing with a guy that was significantly better than anyone that a prime Nash ever had the fortune of playing with. Stockton was very, very, good for an extremely long period of time but he was never great in the same way that Nash was. No amount of pretty boxscore stat sheets is going to change the fact that Stockton was incapable of being the best player on a contender, whereas Nash was.


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

If he came to Indiana he'd instantly restore interest in our team and would be a crowd favorite.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I kind of hope that he goes to Indiana at this point. That way he'd stay on a competitive team, but also still be fun to watch.

He would definitely aid Paul George's development as well.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Dissonance said:


> 62-20 PHX team that finished almost last yr the before. He deserved that first one. And he got the 2nd because of what he did with no Amare.
> 
> Just because he's not a "superstar" shouldn't matter or the best player. It's MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. Sick of you elitists and I'm not even that big of a Nash fan.


Well I'm sick of fanboys that hide behind subjective terms like "valuable" to prop up players that are on their favorite team. The fact that anyone would argue that the league's most prestigious regular season award *shouldn't* go to the best player is retarded.

I love Nash, and I think he's one of the best point guards ever. But he didn't deserve either of his MVP awards. Sorry.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Firstly, I'd be careful with throwing terms around like "retarded."

Secondly, I'm not even that big of a Nash fan. I guess you missed that.


I see it took you almost a month to come up with some reply. No, and not it's not "retarded." This is why it's a season award for the top player of that yr. Not let's hand it to every top player yr in and yr out. That's just silly. Not hiding behind anything anyway. The name of the award is Most Valuable Player. Not Best Player of ???, etc. But whatever dude, he won em, can't do nothing about it. Sorry, yourself.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Aren't you the guy that posts borderline zombie porn in the million post thread? No disrespect but let's not try and act like arbitrarily saying retarded in that context is going to offend anyone more than naked girls and dead people.

And I didn't miss that. Reread my post. I called you a "fanboy" referring to your Suns' affiliation, not your Nash fandom, hence "to prop up players on your favorite team".

And yes, it's the season award that should go to the top player of the year. Steve Nash has never been the "top" or best player in the world. Ever. And he's never really been all that close. The fact that he has as many MVPs as Shaq and Kobe combined is a travesty. Or as many as Duncan. 

And just because he "won em" doesn't mean I can't complain about a blatant mistake. So yeah. Sorry.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

They all artsy pics. Fake. It's not even my thing. I post cuz I know it's hidden and it's funny to me, as the reactions. They don't offend anyone either. Who doesn't love half-naked girls though? There's a difference, too. Pics or a general personal attack on those who make the argument - even if it's not directed at anyone or you meant stupid. 

Regardless. My affiliation or fandom is almost at empty right now. I bash them left and right - most would think I hate them. What happened seasons ago isn't gonna change that. Nice try. I don't operate that way. Having to type all that cuz of your assumptions and the fact that you have to reach on that - you're just pissing me off. I'm just tired of that argument that it should go to Top Players. I would be having this discussion with anyone who isn't a top 3 player since it's supposed to go to one of em. 

I know you'll think whatever you think regardless. He's definitely not close on their level overall, but again, your performance level changes yr to yr, some don't have the same one as their player status is. Their team doesn't do as well either. That is an important factor. People try to put it into some legacy status or how good a player is - defining them with history and how he has more than certain players. Who cares? Like it means something. It doesn't. Top contender those yrs, having an amazing season and you get rewarded for it. Best player the argument is silly, just reeks of elitism and not having it go your way. And is it really that important, too? It's just MVP. Kobe, Duncan, Shaq have rings combined that could cover both Nash's hands and part of his feet - which is more important anyway.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

I think it's safe to say Nash is gone. But I read that the Suns apparently put a 3 year offer (undisclosed amount) on the table to Nash.

So far I've heard PHX, POR and TOR are the teams he's thinking about. He's not going to Indiana or ATL. There is no reason to really. PHX because he loves the franchise, fans and city. Toronto because of his Canadian connection and his role in the Canadian National Team. And Portland.... I have no idea really. Money I guess.

But then again, recently he was quoted basically saying he wants to get paid. He tried to spin it as it's a "sign of respect" but bottom line he wants that dollar. So I guess who really knows where he goes.


And honestly, I'm also tired of people bitching about his MVP's. Isn't the award supposed to go to the player that is most responsible for his teams success? Granted there is an inherent argument in there. Like Kobe was the only reason the Lakers won more than 15 games that one year. Or Shaq was the reason his team was on top. But you act like he had no right to even be in the running. When that is just blatantly.... stupid. And the fact that he has AS MANY or MORE than certain players really has nothing to do with this conversation. I think it's ridiculous that Horry has more rings than Nash, Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Miller, Kemp, CP3, Williams, Durant, Howard, etc combined. But it's all a matter of timing.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

I'm thinking he heads to Toronto and finishes in up there before he retires, it makes a lot of sense. They also don't wanna make the Lowry move knowing it could cost em their chance. Not sure about Portland. And I don't know if our front office is willing to do anything movement wise that would convince him to stay. 


For what he had to put up with last 2 yrs after WCF appearance, I don't blame him.


Yeah, only reason he heads to anyone of em is to get paid. Not close to being contenders. It's clear that a motivation if he's not gonna entertain Indiana, ATL, or elsewhere.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

I have thought Toronto or New York all along. But after thinking about it NY just doesn't make sense. I'm hoping he helps us out by forcing a Sign and Trade though I don't know what the Raptors would be willing to part with but I'll take the Trade Exception if that's all we can get.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

he could always come to LA


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Dissonance said:


> They all artsy pics. Fake. It's not even my thing. I post cuz I know it's hidden and it's funny to me, as the reactions. They don't offend anyone either. Who doesn't love half-naked girls though? There's a difference, too. Pics or a general personal attack on those who make the argument - even if it's not directed at anyone or you meant stupid.
> 
> Regardless. My affiliation or fandom is almost at empty right now. I bash them left and right - most would think I hate them. What happened seasons ago isn't gonna change that. Nice try. I don't operate that way. Having to type all that cuz of your assumptions and the fact that you have to reach on that - you're just pissing me off. I'm just tired of that argument that it should go to Top Players. I would be having this discussion with anyone who isn't a top 3 player since it's supposed to go to one of em.
> 
> I know you'll think whatever you think regardless. He's definitely not close on their level overall, but again, your performance level changes yr to yr, some don't have the same one as their player status is. Their team doesn't do as well either. That is an important factor. People try to put it into some legacy status or how good a player is - defining them with history and how he has more than certain players. Who cares? Like it means something. It doesn't. Top contender those yrs, having an amazing season and you get rewarded for it. Best player the argument is silly, just reeks of elitism and not having it go your way. And is it really that important, too? It's just MVP. Kobe, Duncan, Shaq have rings combined that could cover both Nash's hands and part of his feet - which is more important anyway.


You say they're artsy. Others may say it's weird and offensive. I am personally not one of those people, I don't really care what you post. But that's the entire crux of what I'm saying. It's all about perception and context. I did not mean to offend anyone by saying retarded, that was pretty clear within the context of my post, just as you're not blatantly trying to offend people with borderline porn on a message board. But don't sit there on your high horse telling me what's offensive when you're in the same ballpark as I am Mr. Admin.

So you think that the league's most prestigious regular season award should go to the best story instead of the best players every year? If that's what you think then fine, whatever. But it's ****ing stupid.

Yes, players performance changes year to year. But the thing about players like Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, or LeBron is that even if they don't have a great year by their standards, chances are they're still better than 99% of the league. In 2005 Shaq was not at his best, but he was sure as hell better and more *valuable on a basketball court* than Steve Nash was. So was Tim Duncan. Kobe was at his apex in 2006, so this argument does not apply to him. He was *considerably* better on both sides of the floor and led arguably the worst supporting cast in the league to game 7 against Nash's Suns. Without Bryant the Lakers might have won 10 games that year. Maybe. With him they made the playoffs in the tougher conference. How is that not valuable?

I'm failing to see how a formula that rewards the best basketball players for *playing the best basketball* reeks of elitism. It sounds pretty fair to me. At least it sounds a hell of a lot more fair than randomly selecting a top ten player who had a cute storyline over a two year period and putting him up with the Tim Duncans of the history of the game.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Hasn't the MVP award always been about two things? One is having the best, or one of the best records in the league as a team, and two is being the most valuable player on that said team. The Suns in 04/05 had the biggest turn around, and the only main difference in their team addition was the signing of Steve Nash (oh yeah, I think they signed Jake Voshul too). I think there's a legitimate case to argue Nash's two MVPs, but to say he deserved neither is completely naive. 

And to address the main topic of this thread, I think Nash's options are something like. . 
1) New York, Miami
2) Dallas, Atlanta 
3) Toronto
4) Phoenix

It really depends on if he wants money to play. I really don't think LeBron is going to go out of his way to recruit Nash, which ultimately means he probably won't end up in Miami. So New York is looking pretty realistic to me.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Downplaying Kobe's supporting cast in 05-06 while propping up Nash's nearly equally awful supporting cast in that same year is silly. Take away Odom and Marion (Odom btw had a history of destroying Marion)and I'm not sure which one I would pick. basically every single one of the players on that Suns team got bigger pay days than they should have because of Nash. Without Kobe that Lakers team maybe won 10 games? Without Nash that suns team likely finishes in the same area of the standings. Hell they were projected to do so after they lost Joe Johnson and Amare was slated to be out all season.

Yes, the Lakers also won the 7th seed in the tougher conference. The Suns were the 2nd seed in the same conference.. So I dont get that point Nash did more with similarly talented teammates and a dumb ass coach.

Nash isn't considered anywhere near the all time greats either in any capacity other than _maybe_ shooting.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Seuss said:


> Hasn't the MVP award always been about two things? One is having the best, or one of the best records in the league as a team, and two is being the most valuable player on that said team. The Suns in 04/05 had the biggest turn around, and the only main difference in their team addition was the signing of Steve Nash (oh yeah, I think they signed Jake Voshul too). I think there's a legitimate case to argue Nash's two MVPs, but to say he deserved neither is completely naive.
> 
> And to address the main topic of this thread, I think Nash's options are something like. .
> 1) New York, Miami
> ...


Sounds about right.. guess we will see how it plays out. A few weeks ago I read that he said he would like to play in Miami, but then just a few days ago he was quoted about wanting to get paid one more time. And if reports are true about Ray Allen and the Heat having mutual interest after Mike Miller retires then all the Heat money would be sucked up I would think.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Luke said:


> You say they're artsy. Others may say it's weird and offensive. I am personally not one of those people, I don't really care what you post. But that's the entire crux of what I'm saying. It's all about perception and context. I did not mean to offend anyone by saying retarded, that was pretty clear within the context of my post, just as you're not blatantly trying to offend people with borderline porn on a message board. But don't sit there on your high horse telling me what's offensive when you're in the same ballpark as I am Mr. Admin.
> 
> So you think that the league's most prestigious regular season award should go to the best story instead of the best players every year? If that's what you think then fine, whatever. But it's ****ing stupid.
> 
> ...


lol.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Luke said:


> Well I'm sick of fanboys that hide behind subjective terms like "valuable" to prop up players that are on their favorite team. The fact that anyone would argue that the league's most prestigious regular season award *shouldn't* go to the best player is retarded.
> 
> I love Nash, and I think he's one of the best point guards ever. But he didn't deserve either of his MVP awards. Sorry.


Know what's funny? The MVP award is 100% subjective, and therefore worthless. And by using words like 'deserve' and 'should' (or shouldn't) in relation to who did or didn't get the award, you just proved it.

If the MVP 'award' actually meant anything, it would be automatic, like the scoring title. You either win the scoring title or you don't. There's no gray area, and it's not based on debatable accomplishments that can never actually be proven. Where's the prestige in winning an award that is given and not earned? The fact that people view an award that's literally given out based on people's opinions as 'most prestigious' and hold it in such high regard is both hilarious and sad.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Dissonance said:


> lol.


Keep up the stimulating basketball discussion!


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

chilltown said:


> Downplaying Kobe's supporting cast in 05-06 while propping up Nash's nearly equally awful supporting cast in that same year is silly. Take away Odom and Marion (Odom btw had a history of destroying Marion)and I'm not sure which one I would pick. basically every single one of the players on that Suns team got bigger pay days than they should have because of Nash. Without Kobe that Lakers team maybe won 10 games? Without Nash that suns team likely finishes in the same area of the standings. Hell they were projected to do so after they lost Joe Johnson and Amare was slated to be out all season.
> 
> Yes, the Lakers also won the 7th seed in the tougher conference. The Suns were the 2nd seed in the same conference.. So I dont get that point Nash did more with similarly talented teammates and a dumb ass coach.
> 
> Nash isn't considered anywhere near the all time greats either in any capacity other than _maybe_ shooting.


Did you just say that the Lakers' supporting cast was equal to the Suns? You realize that the 2006 Lakers started Smush Parker, Luke Walton, and Kwame Brown, right? I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you weren't watching basketball at that point. There's no way that anyone who watched that season would leave with that impression. Wow.


----------

