# Update: Steve Nash to Lakers for package of 1st rd picks



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

> Sam Amick ‏@sam_amick
> Source confirms Toronto has offered Steve Nash a three-year, $36 million deal with no options attached. @ESPNSteinline had first.


..


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Should be the biggest offer by far.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Excited doesn't describe it.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

If he accepts, Toronto may actually become watchable again.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

I really hope this isn't our only play this summer.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

I don't guess the Heat even bothered trying to offer Nash the 3 million they could. Unless Nash wants to chase titles this is probably the best offer he'll get. Toronto could be pretty decent if Nash could sustain his current level of play. Of course it's hard to see him being effective averaging much over 30-33 minutes per game, so you'd need a good back up too.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Keeping Calderon would be like bringing Nash-lite off the bench, but making way too much money for that.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

I hope the Suns don't match this. Good for Toronto though.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



Diable said:


> I don't guess the Heat even bothered trying to offer Nash the 3 million they could. *Unless Nash wants to chase titles *this is probably the best offer he'll get. Toronto could be pretty decent if Nash could sustain his current level of play. Of course it's hard to see him being effective averaging much over 30-33 minutes per game, so you'd need a good back up too.


Steve Nash (AKA "the greatest Canadian alive besides Brian Adams and Celine Dion") is no ring-chaser, as far as i can tell.
It would be proper for him to end his career in Canada (Toronto).


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Start with Nash, end with Wiggins. 

Canada dominates.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

How the hell does Toronto get Wiggins?


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Nash goes down for a season during this 3 years. Raptors end up with the number 1 choice - Welcome Wiggins!


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

It's way too much money but whatever. It's not like the Raptors ever had a plan to begin with.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

This is going to come down to how much hometown, native pride he has for Canada. It's the best offer numbers-wise but Canada's taxes are also higher and will take a portion of that.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



Porn Player said:


> Nash goes down for a season during this 3 years. Raptors end up with the number 1 choice - Welcome Wiggins!


That's a very big stretch dude. If there's one thing we've all learned this year, it's that you can end the season with the worst winning percentage in the history of the NBA, and can still end up not getting the first overall pick.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



Marcus13 said:


> This is going to come down to how much *hometown*, native pride he has for Canada. It's the best offer numbers-wise but Canada's taxes are also higher and will take a portion of that.


I thought he grew up in Victoria - his home town is farther away from Toronto than Cleveland is from Seattle - that's like ascribing Lebron's home town pride as the reason he wants to play for the Warriors + isnt Toronto in the smelly french part?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



e-monk said:


> I thought he grew up in Victoria - his home town is farther away from Toronto than Cleveland is from Seattle - that's like ascribing Lebron's home town pride as the reason he wants to play for the Warriors +* isnt Toronto in the smelly french part?*


.......:nonono:


Make whatever "It's Canada, who cares" excuse you want, but your ignorance is a little unsettling.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



R-Star said:


> .......:nonono:
> 
> 
> Make whatever "It's Canada, who cares" excuse you want, but your ignorance is a little unsettling.


pas au Quebec? oops de l'Ontario! me mauvaise quel damage, si terrible!! mes excuses


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



e-monk said:


> pas au Quebec? oops de l'Ontario! me mauvaise quel damage, si terrible!! mes excuses


Ontario isn't at all french.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

no shit - I thought Toronto was in Quebec - my bad (me mauvaise) **** it it's just canada anyway (see what I did there?)


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



e-monk said:


> no shit - I thought Toronto was in Quebec - my bad (me mauvaise) **** it it's just canada anyway (see what I did there?)


Stop. And where the hell do you think you get your clean water from? Without canada's natural resources you american's are screwed.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

and dont forget to mention your cheap pharmacueticals and al qaeda cell members!


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Montreal is in Quebec, Toronto is in Ontario. 

It's like saying Detroit is in New York. You may not care about Canada but not knowing where the two biggest cities are in your neighbourhing country is low.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

I don't get my fresh water from Canada, not sure what the hell that's about...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



Dornado said:


> I don't get my fresh water from Canada, not sure what the hell that's about...


America gets a large amount of it's fresh water piped from Canada.

_The More You Know_


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



doctordrizzay said:


> God damn you are one uneducated fool. And where the hell do you think you get your clean water from? Without canada's natural resources you american's are screwed.


How is Thailand's water?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



R-Star said:


> America gets a large amount of it's fresh water piped from Canada.
> 
> _The More You Know_


No, we really don't.

... the more you... make up?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

if it is on wikiepedia, it must be true:



> Freshwater export between Canada and the US currently takes place at a small scale, mostly as bottled water exports. The bottled water industry exports water in containers usually no larger than twenty litres.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_export#Water_exports_from_Canada_to_the_US


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Wait you American's really think I made that fresh water thing up? My god, You guys literally know nothing. read a book. Wait next thing you guys will say is that there is no such things as books and I made it up.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



Eternal said:


> How is Thailand's water?


Ill only drink imported bottled water while there. Never drink out of the tap in Thailand, just a heads up if you can ever afford to head out there.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

well, I just posted a link saying that only a small amount of fresh water is exported to the United States from Canada... and mostly in bottles, not "piped in".... If you have proof otherwise feel free to site a source, doctor. 

I've read a few books, for whatever that's worth.


----------



## Babe Ruth (Dec 6, 2006)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



R-Star said:


> Ontario isn't at all french.


Ottawa is in Ontario. 

Ottawa has a lot of French people.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

hold on, what are books?


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

You're a book!


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Steve Nash trolling on twitter.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



rynobot said:


> You're a book!


I am?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



doctordrizzay said:


> God damn you are one uneducated fool. And where the hell do you think you get your clean water from? Without canada's natural resources you american's are screwed.


I find this hilarious considering how it's coming from a guy who thinks Lebron is a better passer then Magic Johnson.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



Dornado said:


> well, I just posted a link saying that only a small amount of fresh water is exported to the United States from Canada... and mostly in bottles, not "piped in".... If you have proof otherwise feel free to site a source, doctor.
> 
> I've read a few books, for whatever that's worth.


I go back to work Thursday where I'll have time to sit around and read some stuff and see what I find. I'm fairly confident we have built pipeline(s?) to transport fresh water to the United States. 

Anyways, we'll continue this then I guess.


And doctorBronBron isn't on my team on this argument. Lets just set that straight from the get go.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

I get _my_ water from a reservoir and a series of secondary backups on the west side of town, thankyouverymuch.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Did the Suns really only offer Nash 2 years, $12 million?


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

That's what I saw. Going after Dragic instead, the guy they traded away with a 1st last year for Brooks. Ha.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



Bogg said:


> I get _my_ water from a reservoir and a series of secondary backups on the west side of town, thankyouverymuch.


I wear a still suit which processes my own urine into a potable beverage that tastes sort of like coconut water


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Did you get _that_ from Canada?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



Floods said:


> Did you get _that_ from Canada?


Garage sale on Arrakis.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



XxIrvingxX said:


> I find this hilarious considering how it's coming from a guy who thinks Lebron is a better passer then Magic Johnson.


Yes because Lebron and Magic Johnson passing abilities have everything to do with the economic situation between Canada and USA.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

wait a minute, what's a book?


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

doctordrizzay said:


> Wait you American's really think I made that fresh water thing up? My god, You guys literally know nothing. read a book. Wait next thing you guys will say is that there is no such things as books and I made it up.



Seriously? .... Just wow. Haha


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Basel said:


> Did the Suns really only offer Nash 2 years, $12 million?



If they are smart they will not over that. If we can get him cheap as a trade chip at the deadline ok. Otherwise Nash should not be brought back under any circumstances.

Besides, this is all a play to make it seem like we tried and Nash tried but just couldn't agree on the numbers. That way fans are not bitching..

I don't mind bring dragic back, I hated that trade and loved the idea of dragic as our future pg. Suns never learn. Always drafting and trading them away to try and get them back later


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Heard Suns made no offer on Nash as reported. But they wouldn't go close on what's out there.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



doctordrizzay said:


> Yes because Lebron and Magic Johnson passing abilities have everything to do with the economic situation between Canada and USA.


Yea too bad that wasn't what I was saying, I was saying you shouldn't mock people for something stupid they say considering how you've done it too (incredibly stupid things might I add). You seem to be doing this now in every thread you go in. If you want to lie about what you do during the day, or what famous person said what, or hell even about what famous person you know, go ahead be my guest. But don't try to act like you're smarter then everyone (when you clearly aren't), especially when the reason you're claiming someone is "uneducated" isn't even true.

Anyways, I'm actually not surprised at the offer the Suns gave Nash, although I did expect something...well...bigger I guess. I kind of figured that they would try to bring more talent into to Phoenix to surround Nash with but at this rate it looks like the Nash era in Phoenix might be coming to an end. This has been a interesting off season so far.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



XxIrvingxX said:


> Yea too bad that wasn't what I was saying, I was saying you shouldn't mock people for something stupid they say considering how you've done it too (incredibly stupid things might I add). You seem to be doing this now in every thread you go in. If you want to lie about what you do during the day, or what famous person said what, or hell even about what famous person you know, go ahead be my guest. But don't try to act like your smarter then everyone (when you clearly aren't), especially when the reason you're claiming someone is "uneducated" isn't even true.
> 
> Anyways, I'm actually not surprised at the offer the Suns gave Nash, although I did something...well...bigger I guess. I kind of figured that they would try to bring more talent into to Phoenix to surround Nash with but at this rate it looks like the Nash era in Phoenix might be coming to an end. This has been a interesting off season so far.


I'm starting to think Jamel is right and we should just freeze this guy out. Would probably save us all time and headaches.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



> @daldridgetnt: As Raptors, Knicks & Mavs-fight 4 Steve Nash, the Lakers have also quietly entered the picture & are making a hard push, per league source.


...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Nash possibly on the Lakers? Oh dear god...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



King Sancho Fantastic said:


> ...


You guys remind me of the Toronto Maple Leafs in the NHL. A set group of sports writers always say the Leafs are in on every single FA, every single trade. Because they know it gets them hits on their website. 

In reality they're almost never in on the trades or FA signings, but people still keep reading regardless.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

They use us as leverage in every scenario.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

I would love to have Nash, but he recently said it would be hard for him to put on a Laker jersey.

And Toronto and Dallas can offer him a lot of money.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



> The New York Knicks continue to pursue free-agent point guard Steve Nash, offering a sign-and-trade package headlined by young guard Iman Shumpert, sources told ESPN.com's Marc Stein.



This may be what gets Nash to NY who now I'm sensing wants to be there more now. 


Suns brass love Shumpert.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojYahooNBA
The Knicks have emerged as frontrunners to land Steve Nash in a sign-and-trade deal, league sources tell Y! Sports.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojYahooNBA
Knicks, Suns are in the critical stages of discussions on a sign-and-trade deal that would pay Nash $27M-$30M over 3 years, sources tell Y!


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojYahooNBA
NY package would include Iman Shumpert, Toney Douglas and likely 3 low money players to get Nash salary needed to close gap on Toronto offer


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

Great deal for Suns if that happens. I really like Shumpert.

And trading him is the last thing the Knicks need to be doing.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

SMH. I like the deal for Shumpert.. But hold the **** on with the PG's Suns.

Its like they are saying to themselves 'shit. we are losing Nash. Need as many PGs/SGs as we can to ease the loss. Sign EVERYONE.'

Gordon, Dragic, Shumpert, Douglas, Marshall.. We are going to shift from one logjam on the wings to one in the backcourt.. Not to mention we picked up Telfair's option.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

:sigh:


----------



## JonMatrix (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

Amare is probably recruiting Nash to play in NY so he has a teammate that will get him the ball.

That being said, Nash isn't a good fit for the Knicks right now. Woodson runs an iso heavy scheme and isn't crazy about the pick and roll. Plus he like guys that defend, which Nash can't do.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

Shumpert may be used in a Gordon trade.


I don't think Douglas is staying long. Marshall's a backup/developmental guy. I think it's too late to dump Telfair on the option though. Dragic signs, he'll start.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*



Dissonance said:


> Shumpert may be used in a Gordon trade.
> 
> 
> I don't think Douglas is staying long. Marshall's a backup/developmental guy. I think it's too late to dump Telfair on the option though. Dragic signs, he'll start.


If we got Shumpert I would want to keep him. Evidently NOLA covets Lopez.. so I would give him to them and find someone else cheap. Our front court is awful anyways and every part of it is replaceable IMO. I seriously think that the suns are in for a rude awakening with Gortat. I was not very impressed with him last year when he wasn't being spoon fed the ball on pick n rolls. He does have other redeeming qualities like rebounding and playing very solid defense, but I don't think he is touching 15ppg.. especially on such a high FG %.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*



chilltown said:


> If we got Shumpert I would want to keep him. Evidently NOLA covets Lopez.. so I would give him to them and find someone else cheap. Our front court is awful anyways and every part of it is replaceable IMO. I seriously think that the suns are in for a rude awakening with Gortat. I was not very impressed with him last year when he wasn't being spoon fed the ball on pick n rolls. He does have other redeeming qualities like rebounding and playing very solid defense, but I don't think he is touching 15ppg.. especially on such a high FG %.


Yeah, I'd want to keep him too. Liked Shumpert coming out. 

Oh, really? They do. Ship Lopez' ass out then if we can!


I think Gortat will be moved. Rubbed the org wrong way privately, and heard they know, he may lose value once Nash is gone.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

I understand that Nash is still an excellent point guard, but I think he's the last person the Knicks should be going after. Unless Woodson wants to adjust his offense to the kind that Nash likes to run, I don't see how this will work out. And who ever it was that said Woodson only likes guys who defend, you do understand that Amare and Carmelo are both on the Knicks team right? I honestly don't think he cares at this point. But I do think Nash's lack of defensive ability is another reason as to why they shouldn't be pursuing him. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

**** off NY. Just **** off.


----------



## JonMatrix (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*



XxIrvingxX said:


> I understand that Nash is still an excellent point guard, but I think he's the last person the Knicks should be going after. Unless Woodson wants to adjust his offense to the kind that Nash likes to run, I don't see how this will work out. And who ever it was that said Woodson only likes guys who defend, you do understand that Amare and Carmelo are both on the Knicks team right? I honestly don't think he cares at this point. But I do think Nash's lack of defensive ability is another reason as to why they shouldn't be pursuing him. Just my opinion though.


Amare and Carmelo aren't exactly defensive specialists, that's true. But Nash is really, really bad on that side of the ball. A bad fit all around, but it just goes to show that the Knicks care more about names than winning. Typical Dolan.


----------



## TheAnswer (Jun 19, 2011)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

I hope this shit doesn't go through, would hate to see Shump go.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: TWITTER: Raptors offer Steve Nash 3 years, $36 million*



e-monk said:


> wait a minute, what's a book?


A guy that takes bets on sporting events.


----------



## NOHornets (Jun 29, 2012)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*



chilltown said:


> Evidently NOLA covets Lopez.. so I would give him to them and find someone else cheap.


Really? I hadn't heard about that.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

The Knicks would be quite scary with Nash, Melo, Chandler and Amare--if they had the right coach. If the trade happens and Woodson can't get their offense flowing, expect a quick exit from him.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

I lineup of Nash Melo and Amare would be so easy to score on


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

If you score more than your opponent you win.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*



Porn Player said:


> If you score more than your opponent you win.


Captain Obvious is Obvious.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

John Gambadoro ‏@Gambo620


> Nash to LA for multiple picks all but done!!!


Gambo is an idiot.. but he does have his nose so far up Sarver's ass that it is worth posting.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

:yesyesyes:


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

Yah, this is all weird now.




> John Gambadoro ‏@Gambo620
> 
> New York was never really a serious option for Nash, he preferred the Lakers
> 
> ...


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

John Gambadoro ‏@Gambo620
Nash never wanted to go to Toronto he wanted to be closer to home in Phoenix, he falls into the 8.9 mill exception. Deal is done

John Gambadoro ‏@Gambo620
Suns will get multiple picks from the Lakers, had been talk earlier of two first rounders so my belief is that it is at least the two 1sts

:kanyeshrug:


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: Update: Knicks, Suns discussing sign and trade deal for Steve Nash*

PHX will boo the hell out of him he pushed himself to LA - if all true


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

*Re: Update: Steve Nash to Lakers?*

Wow.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

*Re: Update: Steve Nash to Lakers?*

That Gambo guy seems to be the only one tweeting this. No one on my list has posted anything. No Woj, no Aldridge, no Stein, no Broussard, no Mannix, nobody.


----------



## Wade2Bosh (Mar 31, 2004)

*Re: Update: Steve Nash to Lakers?*



> Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine
> Just going up online & via SportsCenter: Sources say Suns have consented to sign-and-trade Steve Nash to Lakers for package of future picks


Wow


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

*Re: Update: Steve Nash to Lakers?*



> Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine
> Just going up online & via SportsCenter: Sources say Suns have consented to sign-and-trade Steve Nash to Lakers for package of future picks


There we go.

Definitely good for the Lakers in the short term. But two firsts is a bit much IMO unless the latter has some pretty good protection on it.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

*Re: Update: Steve Nash to Lakers?*

Yeah, he gets a bad rep from Suns fans but he has his sources. He called out potential deals wouldn't happen w/Amare, who Suns were interested in deals, among other things, and who they were picking in draft. Usually spot on about that. 

I haven't seen him wrong about something in awhile.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Well, next season just got a whole lot more interesting.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Yep.




> Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojYahooNBA
> 
> Source confirms: The Suns are sending Steve Nash to the Lakers for draft picks.





> Marc Stein ‏@ESPNSteinLine
> 
> Told KTAR-AM radio in PHX has tweeted it first. Suns have consented to send Nash to where he can contend AND be close to his children


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Kobe couldn't ask for a better backcourt partner. This will also get Bynum the additional shots he needs. Assuming Nash is not too much of a defensive liability, number six is well within reach for Kobe.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

4 draft picks or 4 1's?


> Paul Coro ‏@paulcoro
> 
> As @Gambo620 first reported, the #Suns have agreed to send Steve Nash to the Lakers in a sign-and-trade deal for four draft picks and cash.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Paul Coro ‏@paulcoro
In the Nash sign-and-trade, the #Suns will get 2013 & 2015 first-round picks and 2013 & 2014 second-round picks.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Chris Mannix ‏@ChrisMannixSI
Nash-to-LA could ripple down to Dwight Howard. Howard reluctant to play with Kobe. Playmaking Nash on board might change things


----------



## Wade2Bosh (Mar 31, 2004)

Floods said:


> Kobe couldn't ask for a better backcourt partner. This will also get Bynum the additional shots he needs. Assuming he's not too much of a defensive liability, number six is well within reach for Kobe.


Imagine if they now swung a deal for Dwight? mg:


----------



## NOHornets (Jun 29, 2012)

Ben said:


> Well, next season just got a whole lot more interesting.


You got that right.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I will be beyond ecstatic if this goes down. Wow.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Oh hey contention, it's been a minute.

But it feels so good to be back.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

It's done.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Please Atlanta, remove the possibility of LA getting Dwight.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Floods said:


> Chris Mannix ‏@ChrisMannixSI
> Nash-to-LA could ripple down to Dwight Howard. Howard reluctant to play with Kobe. Playmaking Nash on board might change things


That's what I was just thinking. It would definitely make sense to now to do the Bynum/Howard swap, **** whatever he's said about where he wants to go.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

From Twitter:



> Ken Berger ‏@KBergCBS
> 
> Presumably, Nash goes into the Lakers' trade exception for Lamar Odom, explaining why no salary going to Phoenix.
> 
> Stunning that Nash is a Laker and stunning that Suns owner Robert Sarver would send him to L.A.


Well, at least they finally took advantage of a trade exception.

Giving up two number 1's for 60-year-old. Not good.

There goes the future for one last shot at the title. Not sure what to think of this deal.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Actually I think a Bynum/Howard deal is now even riskier for LA.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Wade2Bosh said:


> Imagine if they now swung a deal for Dwight? mg:


**** that, I don't want that nut on the Lakers.

Which I will add there has been no change in Dwightmare's thinking about not extending with any team except the Nets. So why bother with that ****?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

On cloud ****ing nine right now.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Floods said:


> Actually I think a Bynum/Howard deal is now even riskier for LA.


It always has been, but even more so now that Dwightmare has come out has having multiple personalities.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Ron said:


> **** that, I don't want that nut on the Lakers.
> 
> Which I will add there has been no change in Dwightmare's thinking about not extending with any team except the Nets. So why bother with that ****?


Why bother? To win the championship maybe?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> From Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you insane?

Two first round picks are not the future. The Lakers have drafted one all-star in the first round in the last 15 years, and he just became one last year.

This makes them arguably the most talented team in the west.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Oh ****. We just got our clock cleaned. 

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/e...d-trade-steve-nash-to-lakers-for-future-picks

Two number ones and two number twos. **** me.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Are you insane?
> 
> Two first round picks are not the future. The Lakers have drafted one all-star in the first round in the last 15 years, and he just became one last year.
> 
> This makes them arguably the most talented team in the west.


Two first rounders and two second rounders.

The Lakers now will be mediocre for the foreseeable future, past Nash and Kobe.

I guess you are all about the present, eh Jamel?

Edit: 3 years at $25 million. 3 years?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Ron said:


> Oh ****. We just got our clock cleaned.
> 
> http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/e...d-trade-steve-nash-to-lakers-for-future-picks
> 
> Two number ones and two number twos. **** me.


So two picks in the 20s and two more in the 50s for a two-time MVP? Yes, I get that he's old, but with the PG problems the Lakers have had recently, how are you not ecstatic? Nash can still play.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Are you ****ing kidding me Phoenix...

What a move by the Lakers. Talk about maximising that championship window with Kobe.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> So two picks in the 20s and two more in the 50s for a two-time MVP? Yes, I get that he's old, but with the PG problems the Lakers have had recently, how are you not ecstatic? Nash can still play.


I am sure it will be fun to see Nash for the next couple of seasons, but I was kind of hoping for a tear-down now.

Well, I will keep an open mind, but losing four picks like that is really going to hurt us in the long run.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> Two first rounders and two second rounders.
> 
> The Lakers now will be mediocre for the foreseeable future, past Nash and Kobe.
> 
> ...


I'm about the present and future, and you are dillusional if you think the Lakers were drafting 4 all-stars with those picks... considering again, they've only drafted one all-star in over 15 years.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Why did Nash force himself there? I thought he wanted to win championships? Guess not.
:funk:


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Per Twitter:



> Ken Berger ‏@KBergCBS
> 
> Two questions emerge from Nash-to-Lakers stunner: 1) is this a prelude to a Dwight Howard trade, and 2) does this mean Jason Kidd to Knicks?


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I'm about the present and future, and you are dillusional if you think the Lakers were drafting 4 all-stars with those picks... considering again, they've only drafted one all-star in over 15 years.


Jamel, please point out to me where I said they would draft all-stars at those picks?

A rebuild has to take place at some time. When would you rather do it?


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Nashty....


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

chilltown said:


> Why did Nash force himself there? I thought he wanted to win championships? Guess not.
> :funk:


He can a win a title next year with the Lakers, if everything falls right.

What gets me is I heard somewhere that he just couldn't put on a Lakers uniform. So I guess that was a pure bullshit statement, huh?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Ron said:


> Oh ****. We just got our clock cleaned.
> 
> http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/e...d-trade-steve-nash-to-lakers-for-future-picks
> 
> Two number ones and two number twos. **** me.


It is pricey, but the future is now.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

They're still not as good as the Thunder, but if this leads to them getting Dwight...yikes.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

K.C Johnson ‏@KCJHoop
Nash turns down reported $11 million more from Raptors to go to Lakers. He's rare athlete you can believe when he says it's not about the $.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Ron said:


> He can a win a title next year with the Lakers, if everything falls right.
> 
> What gets me is I heard somewhere that he just couldn't put on a Lakers uniform. So I guess that was a pure bullshit statement, huh?


Yeah.. Nash just exposed himself as a phony.

Maybe his way of saying F u to the Suns ownership who ****ed him over the last 5 seasons.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Terrible for the Raptors. LMAO.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Lakers gave up two late first rounders and two late second rounders. A few bench players if they got lucky with the picks. The type of player they'll be able to sign in abundance when all the old folk leave the team.




Raptors going to go for Lowry again?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

HELL YEAH!!!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> Jamel, please point out to me where I said they would draft all-stars at those picks?
> 
> A rebuild has to take place at some time. When would you rather do it?


Very likely they draft players like Jordan Farmar, Sasha Vujacic, Devin Ebanks and Luke Walton with those picks. Sure they can be servicable role players, but they don't accelerate a rebuild and its not worth a chance at being probable favorites to win the West for the next two seasons.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Chad Ford ‏@chadfordinsider
According to @ESPNSteinLine, Nash gets 3 yrs, $25M from Lakers. Will recruit Grant Hill to join him in LA.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Hill too?! Wow.


----------



## Lynx (Mar 6, 2004)

I can't wait to rub it in to my co-workers tomorrow.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

That 2015 pick could be a very good if that pick does not have protection on it.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

They still need Dwight IMO.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

A bold and awesome move. Championship time!


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

> Agent Bill Duffy says new Lakers G Steve Nash was choosing between NYK & TOR before LAL stepped up offer to become real option two days ago.



Marc J. Spears ‏@SpearsNBAYahoo


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Steve Nash:



> "For me, it would be hard to put on a Lakers jersey. That’s just the way it is."


And this is why you can't get emotionally invested. Waste of time.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Ben said:


> Hill too?! Wow.


Sources told ESPN.com that Nash will try to convince longtime teammate Grant Hill, one of his closest friends in the game, to join him with the Lakers. ESPN The Magazine's Ric Bucher reported over the weekend the Lakers were one of four teams (along with Toronto, New York and Phoenix) in the running for Hill after the 39-year-old's recent trip to Germany undergo the same platelet-enrichment treatment on his knee that Bryant credited for his rejuvenated knee last season.

From the same story.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

hobojoe said:


> They still need Dwight IMO.


No, Dwight would be a luxury but they certainly don't need him.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Ron said:


> I am sure it will be fun to see Nash for the next couple of seasons, but I was kind of hoping for a tear-down now.
> 
> Well, I will keep an open mind, but losing four picks like that is really going to hurt us in the long run.


Why not try to win now as long as we have Kobe still? Doesn't make sense to let his last few years go to waste. I realize we have to rebuild sometime, but let that time wait until after we're done having a shot at winning it all.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Very likely they draft players like Jordan Farmar, Sasha Vujacic, Devin Ebanks and Luke Walton with those picks. Sure they can be servicable role players, but they don't accelerate a rebuild and its not worth a chance at being probable favorites to win the West for the next two seasons.


Here's the good part for me on this deal...Ramon Sessions, you just ****ed yourself. Go to Toronto, that's what you get for opting out of your deal, idiot. Dream come true, my ass. Still can't believe he said that.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Eternal said:


> Why not try to win now as long as we have Kobe still? Doesn't make sense to let his last few years go to waste. I realize we have to rebuild sometime, but let that time wait until after we're done having a shot at winning it all.


Yeah, I am thinking that way too...my initial reaction was **** this, but I guess if we are going to keep Kobe might as well give it a one- or two-year shot...but still, we are in for a world of hurt sooner rather than later.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

It's not like we can't flip Pau for Beasley and Williams...


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Floods said:


> No, Dwight would be a luxury but they certainly don't need him.


We still need Dwight IMO. I still like the Heat over us if we were matched up in Finals. We'd have no one to stop Wade and Lebron driving to the lane on a consistent basis, unless Bynum magically starts giving it his all every play. Bynum usually will just coast out there most of the time and occasionally have good/great games.

This move puts us over the Thunder now. That series against them last season was almost a coin toss every game, we just had mental collapses at the end. Nash will change that and is a big upgrade over Sessions (at least in playoffs).


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Ron said:


> Yeah, I am thinking that way too...my initial reaction was **** this, but I guess if we are going to keep Kobe might as well give it a one- or two-year shot...but still, we are in for a world of hurt sooner rather than later.


Oh I agree completely. It's not going to be pretty once Kobe is done with.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Eternal said:


> *We still need Dwight IMO.* I still like the Heat over us if we were matched up in Finals. We'd have no one to stop Wade and Lebron driving to the lane on a consistent basis, unless Bynum magically starts giving it his all every play. Bynum usually will just coast out there most of the time and occasionally have good/great games.
> 
> This move puts us over the Thunder now. That series against them last season was almost a coin toss every game, we just had mental collapses at the end. Nash will change that and is a big upgrade over Sessions (at least in playoffs).


One-year rental? Give up Bynum for a one-year rental? Eternal, you do realize that the ****er *WON'T EXTEND HERE*, right?

Yeah, I agree Bynum coasts...I am hoping someone will get him straightened out at some time in the future.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Ron said:


> Yeah, I am thinking that way too...my initial reaction was **** this, but I guess if we are going to keep Kobe might as well give it a one- or two-year shot...but still, we are in for a world of hurt sooner rather than later.


The Lakers went from Showtime to Kobe-Shaq in 5 years while only missing the playoffs once. And they didn't have a 24 year old all-star center back then either.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

You still need a quality back up. Nash isn't going to be effective if you play him heavy minutes. His minutes have been decreasing since 01-02 when he played 34.6 minutes. Last year he only played 31.6. So your 2nd string point will play more than normal.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Ron said:


> One-year rental? Give up Bynum for a one-year rental? Eternal, you do realize that the ****er *WON'T EXTEND HERE*, right?
> 
> Yeah, I agree Bynum coasts...I am hoping someone will get him straightened out at some time in the future.


We need Dwight in terms of his defensive presence and improving us. I'm not saying we should get him though, as he seems to be a nut case just like Bynum, and seems consistent on wanting to go to Brooklyn. I was just saying I do not think we will be good enough to beat the Heat, unless everything clicks for us.

Bynum reminds me of a younger Lebron, as he just does some stupid stuff and has mental collapses when talking to the media. Hopefully he starts to get it like Lebron did this year. So in that sense he has the edge over Howard, as he will hopefully mature and start thinking straight. I just don't know if that will be soon enough, before Kobe and Nash are done.

I am eagerly awaiting to see what we get for Pau. I can't see us keeping him another year. We are not using him to his potential and seems like a waste for us to not trade him for something we could get more out of.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

Diable said:


> You still need a quality back up. Nash isn't going to be effective if you play him heavy minutes. His minutes have been decreasing since 01-02 when he played 34.6 minutes. Last year he only played 31.6. So your 2nd string point will play more than normal.


Blake is good enough for ten or fifteen minutes. Anything more than that...


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

Nash will control the ball which means less idiotic turnovers like the ones you saw from Kobe during the OKC series. Best of all, he can consistently hit a shot! LAL has at least one guy now on the perimeter who you can count on to hit the open 3.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

MojoPin said:


> Nash will control the ball which means less idiotic turnovers like the ones you saw from Kobe during the OKC series. Best of all, he can consistently hit a shot! LAL has at least one guy now on the perimeter who you can count on to hit the open 3.


No more Blake in crunch time.  I can't remember the last time we had a guy who would consistently hit the 3 for us.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Eternal said:


> We still need Dwight IMO. I still like the Heat over us if we were matched up in Finals. We'd have no one to stop Wade and Lebron driving to the lane on a consistent basis, unless Bynum magically starts giving it his all every play. Bynum usually will just coast out there most of the time and occasionally have good/great games.


This is just an outsider's perspective, but I think Bynum's moodiness is connected to Kobe's selfishness. A guy who's adept as Bynum is in the post should be getting a lot more than 13 shots a game. If you feel frozen out on offense, other parts of your game can slip as well. It's not right, it's not wrong, it just is. Nash can get him more shots, which will in turn lead to him a better all-around player.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I said the Lakers have only drafted one all-star in the last 15 years but realize they have drafted two, forgot Marc Gasol.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

There's a lot of factors that go into his decision. I think ultimately being closer to his children and his home that he created in Phoenix over the past 8 years played a large role. But also, Nash knows his window is closing, so why not team up with one of the greatest players in Kobe Bryant and chase after that ring. This isn't a sour choice to me as a Phoenix Suns fan. I'll definitely be cheering the Lakers on and hoping he can finish his career on top. (Also it is nice to be an LA resident to get all the games for free haha)


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Floods said:


> This is just an outsider's perspective, but I think Bynum's moodiness is connected to Kobe's selfishness. A guy who's adept as Bynum is in the post should be getting a lot more than 13 shots a game. If you feel frozen out on offense, other parts of your game can slip as well. It's not right, it's not wrong, it just is. Nash can get him more shots, which will in turn lead to him a better all-around player.


I believe it has some to do with Kobe and some to do with his immaturity. You can tell he gets frustrated not getting the ball enough, which I do too sometimes. A lot of times though Bynum is being lazy and not positioning himself in the right area either though. That could be because he feels why bother with Kobe handling the ball so much, but it also could be because of immaturity. I believe it's a mix of both.

I think this move for Nash will be very interesting. I am eager to see how Kobe handles this, as he will not be ball dominant anymore in terms of the ball handling duties, and how much this will improve Bynum. Maybe Nash can even teach Bynum how to park a car.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Blake is solid as a backup and Morris has a great mentor now to teach him how to play the point at an elite level.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I haven't been this happy as a Lakers fan since we beat Boston in 2010. This is awesome.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Luke said:


> I haven't been this happy as a Lakers fan since we beat Boston in 2010. This is awesome.


*PTSD flashback*


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Didn't think this would happen. Brilliant move. 

Can't wait to have a real point guard who can also hit the 3 consistently.


----------



## Drizzy (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm so depressed.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

yay!


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Eternal said:


> We still need Dwight IMO. I still like the Heat over us if we were matched up in Finals. We'd have no one to stop Wade and Lebron driving to the lane on a consistent basis, unless Bynum magically starts giving it his all every play. Bynum usually will just coast out there most of the time and occasionally have good/great games.
> 
> This move puts us over the Thunder now. That series against them last season was almost a coin toss every game, we just had mental collapses at the end. Nash will change that and is a big upgrade over Sessions (at least in playoffs).


I've yet to meet a person (player or not) who has had back surgery and walked away good as new. I am not sure I want to pay the max to a guy when I'm not sure how he will come back from this surgery.

or a guy who's best friend is Josh Smith !


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

LA68 said:


> I've yet to meet a person (player or not) who has had back surgery and walked away good as new. I am not sure I want to pay the max to a guy when I'm not sure how he will come back from this surgery.
> 
> or a guy who's best friend is Josh Smith !


True about the back surgery. Although I assume Dwight had it done by the best of the best unlike the common man.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

This honestly feels like 2003 when Karl Malone and Gary Payton both went to LA to play with Kobe and Shaq. The hype was so big for the Lakers all of a sudden. 

This is also a completely different situation though, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I can't wait to see Nash and Kobe play together. It's definitely going to be interesting. It will also be interesting if Nash manages to get Grant Hill over on the Lakers. 

With Sessions and Blake both as backups, along with Artest (refuse to call him world peace), and Hill as back ups, this would be a very good team. Definitely championship material.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

Now if we can flip Drew for Dwight.......


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Luke said:


> I haven't been this happy as a Lakers fan since we beat Boston in 2010. This is awesome.


This.

Cannot wait for October!


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

we FINALLY have a competent point guard!!


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

Ugh.


I'm going to feel dirty cheering for the Lakers in the playoffs. Oh well better than the Knicks I guess.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

As far as I can tell the Lakers biggest problems against OKC were that Westbrook/Durant/Harden were combining to average about 140 points per game. I'm not sure how the addition of a point guard so old that even I get to call him gramps changes that.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I thought the problem was the Lakers failure to execute late in games 2 and 4 where they held significant leads in the 4th quarter before turning the ball over repeatedly and otherwise generating empty possessions down the stretch but that's just because I was watching and agonizing over what was happening


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Their inability to keep OKC's big three from scoring on every single possession played just _a little_ part in those games.


----------



## Wilmatic2 (Oct 30, 2005)

I am not feeling this at all. The Lakers just screwed themselves, what the f*ck just happened? Nash is 39 years old! Doesn't play any defense, how is he supposed to keep up with all the young, athletic, explosive point guards in the league? What the f*ck!!!!!!!!!! F*ck you Jim Buss! You f*cking idiot! Go die!


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Floods said:


> *This is just an outsider's perspective, but I think Bynum's moodiness is connected to Kobe's selfishness.* A guy who's adept as Bynum is in the post should be getting a lot more than 13 shots a game. If you feel frozen out on offense, other parts of your game can slip as well. It's not right, it's not wrong, it just is. Nash can get him more shots, which will in turn lead to him a better all-around player.


This.

You hit the nail on the head.

It's what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Wilmatic2 said:


> I am not feeling this at all. The Lakers just screwed themselves, what the f*ck just happened? Nash is 39 years old! Doesn't play any defense, how is he supposed to keep up with all the young, athletic, explosive point guards in the league? What the f*ck!!!!!!!!!! F*ck you Jim Buss! You f*cking idiot! Go die!


Ha ha, welcome to today's NBA, where hype and the FA season is more interesting than the regular season.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> As far as I can tell the Lakers biggest problems against OKC were that Westbrook/Durant/Harden were combining to average about 140 points per game. I'm not sure how the addition of a point guard so old that even I get to call him gramps changes that.


It doesn't.

Instead of losing 4-1 to the Thunder we now get to lose 4-2. Joy.

Seriously, it gives the fans (and Kobe) the impression that Laker management is doing something, anything, to make the team competitive and the illusion that this move will actually get Kobe closer to a 6th ring.

The reality is that OKC and San Antonio (and the Clippers) are still in the West.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Wilmatic2 said:


> I am not feeling this at all. The Lakers just screwed themselves, what the f*ck just happened? Nash is 39 years old! Doesn't play any defense, how is he supposed to keep up with all the young, athletic, explosive point guards in the league? What the f*ck!!!!!!!!!! F*ck you Jim Buss! You f*cking idiot! Go die!


You know, there's about one player in the league that I can think of that can almost make up for that. He's played some of the best defensive teams in the league year in and year out for a while now while starting along side defensive stalwarts like Jameer Nelson, Hedo Turkoglu, Jason Richardson, Rashard Lewis, JJ Redick and Ryan Anderson. Maybe you can look into acquiring that guy.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

I find it hilarious that Dallas basically helped us get Nash, that TPE really came in handy.


----------



## Wilmatic2 (Oct 30, 2005)

Goran Dragic would've been the better FA pickup.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Dragic can't keep up with Westbrook either. 

Now Westbrook actually has to play defense against the Lakers.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> As far as I can tell the Lakers biggest problems against OKC were that Westbrook/Durant/Harden were combining to average about 140 points per game. I'm not sure how the addition of a point guard so old that even I get to call him gramps changes that.


Nice try but the Lakers gave up only 11 more points than the Heat did in 5 games. And that's counting the final game that turned into a blowout when the Lakers gave up.

EDIT: And are people forgetting how little the Lakers got out of Sessions and Blake? How can anyone look at the numbers and tell me Nash wouldn't have helped.


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

Wilmatic2 said:


> Goran Dragic would've been the better FA pickup.


I'm not sure how he would've been for the "Win now" mode that we are in. He would've been better long term, but short term Nash is better.

Pretty much anyone we were going to pickup was not going to stop the Westbrooks of the world, but this certainly will make him play defense on the other end, which he will have to exert more energy on the defensive end that will hopefully exhaust him somewhat.

Our best chance to to slow down Westbrook, Parker, etc. is to pickup Howard to clog up the middle, but I don't like the idea of him not wanting to play here. It's too risky to go for him even if he did change his mind to come to LA, as he changes his mind all the time. 

Dwight Howard is like the Brett Favre of the NFL.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Their inability to keep OKC's big three from scoring on every single possession played just _a little_ part in those games.


game 2 ended 77-79 and featured a 12-18 4th quarter, pull another one


----------



## Madstrike (Jan 12, 2011)

Interesting. Sure Nash is a liability on defense, but when did lakers last had a real pg? Wait to see Nash dishing a lot to bynum, and I honestly expect to see kobes effectiveness going up too as he will actually be getting some good looks from nash instead of the same old forced fade away jumper(which he can obviously make but not that often as clean looks...).


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

hobojoe said:


> You know, there's about one player in the league that I can think of that can almost make up for that. He's played some of the best defensive teams in the league year in and year out for a while now while starting along side defensive stalwarts like Jameer Nelson, Hedo Turkoglu, Jason Richardson, Rashard Lewis, JJ Redick and Ryan Anderson. Maybe you can look into acquiring that guy.


maybe if you trade someone spanish for his 'best friend' and an S&T'd tweener guard from Kansas to insure that he wants to stick around and then you ship out a 24 year old all star center you could do that? but I have no idea how you could make all that happen, do you? where would they find the pieces?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Wilmatic2 said:


> I am not feeling this at all. The Lakers just screwed themselves, what the f*ck just happened? Nash is 39 years old! Doesn't play any defense, how is he supposed to keep up with all the young, athletic, explosive point guards in the league? What the f*ck!!!!!!!!!! F*ck you Jim Buss! You f*cking idiot! Go die!


relax - they went 'all in' for the next two seasons of Kobe which they really had no choice about anyway given his contract - they're going to be capped anyway you cut it so how else to max the next two years? come 2015 Kobe & Pau (if he's still here) come off the books along with like 53m in cap relief and all you got left is Nash's expiring (which becomes an asset) and Bynum anyway


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Kobe becomes the first "superstar" to play with 2 players that have more MVP's than him. And they called Lebron robin hahaha


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

If you assume World Peace and Bynum stay in LAL they'll have something around 68 or 69 million in salary in their starting lineup. I was thinking they might keep Sessions, but even the Lakers are going to squeal when the tax man comes to the door.


----------



## bircan (Jul 17, 2005)

Wow, some crazy shit. Followed Nash from Dallas in his last year (my first following the NBA) to Suns as I liked him the best over Nowitzki. I'm going to follow Nash till his wheels fall off, Suns will have to wait I'm afraid to say... Have a Dallas and Suns Nash jersey, would make an interesting collection if you add in yellow and purple huh.

I think Bynum should mature with Nash, and best case scenario, he is the foundation for the Lakers when Kobe/Nash retire. I even like Gasol on the roster, not sure the Lakers should be looking at too much turnover. Make Gasol feel loved again... See how this goes, IMO don't trade him or Bynum before giving this team a good run at the start of the season. Definitely add one or two defensive players off the bench.

I do wonder how Brown's system will fit with Nash running the point. Nash getting passes from Kobe/Gasol will be fun, the man is just about the best shooter there is, so hopefully he can still get some points up.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

bircan said:


> Wow, some crazy shit. Followed Nash from Dallas in his last year (my first following the NBA) to Suns as I liked him the best over Nowitzki. I'm going to follow Nash till his wheels fall off, Suns will have to wait I'm afraid to say... Have a Dallas and Suns Nash jersey, would make an interesting collection if you add in yellow and purple huh.
> 
> I think Bynum should mature with Nash, and best case scenario, he is the foundation for the Lakers when Kobe/Nash retire. I even like Gasol on the roster, not sure the Lakers should be looking at too much turnover. Make Gasol feel loved again... See how this goes, IMO don't trade him or Bynum before giving this team a good run at the start of the season. Definitely add one or two defensive players off the bench.
> 
> I do wonder how Brown's system will fit with Nash running the point. Nash getting passes from Kobe/Gasol will be fun, the man is just about the best shooter there is, so hopefully he can still get some points up.


I was a big nash fan, but going to the Lakers just dampened his legacy. He's never been booed, my god he's gonna feel the wrath next year.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

doctordrizzay said:


> I was a big nash fan, but going to the Lakers just dampened his legacy. He's never been booed, my god he's gonna feel the wrath next year.


You are just butt-hurt because the Heat didn't get him.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Game3525 said:


> I find it hilarious that Dallas basically helped us get Nash, that TPE really came in handy.


If you are looking for irony, here is something even better:

Per Twitter:



> Howard Beck ‏@HowardBeckNYT
> 
> Cruel twist for Knicks: That trade exception L.A. used to obtain Nash? It was created in Tyson Chandler trade, then sent to LA in Odom deal.


----------



## Attila (Jul 23, 2003)

I don't see why people think adding Nash somehow makes the Lakers worse. Maybe you guys know something I don't, but I'm not aware of a Westbrook stopper out there. 

Nash will the ball out of Kobe's hands and will get the rest of the team involved. The biggest problem with the Lakers was that in the 4th quarter everyone would just stand around and watch Kobe.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

If nash isnt passing to Kobe enough, there will be conflict. Nash's IQ is very high so expect ALOT of touches to bynum and gasol. That won't sit right with Kobe.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

I hope Nash breaks down this year.


----------



## bircan (Jul 17, 2005)

He was leaving anyway though... He's also old, would of been horrible seeing him fade in Toronto/Knicks. He's paid his dues.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Their inability to keep OKC's big three from scoring on every single possession played just _a little_ part in those games.


Just a little indeed. The Lakers lead in the final 3 minutes of two of the losses and OKC only went over 100 points twice (which is odd, considering the big three averaged 140 points a game).


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

Kobe's career is prolonged... everyone wins. I'd love to see Dwight Howard on this Lakers team.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

chilltown said:


> Steve Nash:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why you can't get emotionally invested. Waste of time.


He said it would be hard, not impossible. 

I like it. He takes care of himself, so he won't break down and still plays at a high level. He's a great shooter and playmaker. No improvement on D, but their offense gets a huge boost. 

As for the picks, boo freaking hoo. So what LA doesn't get to pick in the late 20s. Considering their drafting ability, the odds are they'd pick some bum. Ron, you have to be outnofnyour mind to think LA is gonna tear down anything and rebuild now, especially through the draft.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Per Twitter:



> Dave McMenamin ‏@mcten
> 
> Pau or Bynum trade the next shoe to drop after Nash? Not so fast. Source tells me Lakers intend to keep core intact to play with Nash


Might as well...if you are going to make such a move, it now doesn't make any sense to move big pieces.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

doctordrizzay said:


> If nash isnt passing to Kobe enough, there will be conflict. Nash's IQ is very high so expect ALOT of touches to bynum and gasol. That won't sit right with Kobe.


...Do you even read some of the things you post?


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> ...Do you even read some of the things you post?


The guy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...but then again, he may be brilliant, and is just totally blinded by his intense Kobe-hate.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Wonder if PHX will boo Nash next year or not


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron said:


> it now doesn't make any sense to move big pieces.


I don't agree. I think moving Bynum for Howard would still be a major improvement for the Lakers organization (provided both centers agree to resign with their new teams).


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

l0st1 said:


> Wonder if PHX will boo Nash next year or not


If they do, they're idiots. Yeah, boo the only reason your team ever had a winning record over the past eight seasons. That'll show him. :2ti:



RollWithEm said:


> I don't agree. I think moving Bynum for Howard would still be a major improvement for the Lakers organization (provided both centers agree to resign with their new teams).


That's exactly the problem. Dwight's a whiny little shit that won't stop wailing until he ends up in Brooklyn. LA doesn't need that. The Lakers are title ready as constructed. Going all in for Dwight may have made sense two days go, when LA had to make a move if they wanted to stay among the elite, but now today they'd be pushing their luck.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Floods said:


> If they do, they're idiots. Yeah, boo the only reason your team ever had a winning record over the past eight seasons. That'll show him. :2ti:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem. Dwight's a whiny little shit that won't stop wailing until he ends up in Brooklyn. LA doesn't need that. The Lakers are title ready as constructed. Going all in for Dwight may have made sense two days go, when LA had to make a move if they wanted to stay among the elite, but now today they'd be pushing their luck.


Would boston fans boo Ray Allen in a Heat uni?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I would hope not.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

I said LA would be the best place for Nash when we were discussing him on the Heat forum. Now if Kobe just buys in and shares the ball they can be a lot better than they have been the last two years.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Floods said:


> If they do, they're idiots. Yeah, boo the only reason your team ever had a winning record over the past eight seasons. That'll show him.


Ummm.... just because we cheered him for 8 years doesn't mean we can't boo him for 3. He went to the one team ALL Suns fans despise. Not even a hesitation about it. He went there because he doesn't give a shit about Phoenix fans or the organization. Hasn't really ever cared. Suns gave him the most money to compete and he acted accordingly.

Oh and he'll go into the HOF in a LAKERS jersey because that was his last team that he played for.

It's kinda funny though that Fisher must be sitting at home thinking, "Wait, they told me that I was too old to be their starting PG!"


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

All Suns fans don't hate the Spurs? I feel like it only makes sense that the Spurs are the most hated team by you guys. We beat y'all once in the Steve Nash era, they knocked you guys out damn near every year.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Yeah, how dare Nash not sign with that freakshow in New York, or Toronto's waste of a franchise, or the sinking ship that is Dallas. How dare he want to actually contend for a ring after the cheapskates running the Suns screwed his team out of one, maybe two. :2ti:


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hyperion said:


> Ummm.... just because we cheered him for 8 years doesn't mean we can't boo him for 3. He went to the one team ALL Suns fans despise. Not even a hesitation about it. He went there because he doesn't give a shit about Phoenix fans or the organization. Hasn't really ever cared. Suns gave him the most money to compete and he acted accordingly.


wow - or how about he could have taken a lot more money from Toronto or New York and instead of a handful of picks the Suns could have gotten nothing at all, period, end of discussion? he could have walked leaving the suns without compensation, instead he worked out a deal where he took less money and the suns got something out of it - what a jerk he is



> Oh and he'll go into the HOF in a LAKERS jersey because that was his last team that he played for.


doesnt he get to choose which uniform he gets enshrined in?



> It's kinda funny though that Fisher must be sitting at home thinking, "Wait, they told me that I was too old to be their starting PG!"


actually it was: "you suck too much to be our starting PG" - age had nothing to do with it


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

The difference between Nash and Fisher is that Nash can actually do something other than sit on the perimeter and hoist up threes.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Luke said:


> All Suns fans don't hate the Spurs? I feel like it only makes sense that the Spurs are the most hated team by you guys. We beat y'all once in the Steve Nash era, they knocked you guys out damn near every year.


It's a different hate. We hate them because they have been better. Granted we hate Horry, but that has a long history of him being a total douche. Pops, Duncan, Parker and Ginobili (as much as I hate his flopping) are class acts. 

The Lakers are our division rival, who get handed EVERYTHING, and just got Nash for the price of a couple of bad contracts. On top of that every single Suns related article gets trolled by Lakers fans.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hyperion said:


> It's a different hate. We hate them because they have been better. Granted we hate Horry, but that has a long history of him being a total douche. Pops, Duncan, Parker and Ginobili (as much as I hate his flopping) are class acts.
> 
> The Lakers are our division rival, *who get handed EVERYTHING*


dont hate them because they're smarter than everybody else - and dont let Herr Stern, Dan Gilbert and Mark Cuban hear you say that or they might douche this deal which actually benefits your team - this wouldnt be happening if it weren't for 'basketball reasons' and they wouldnt have the TPE if not for the Mavs moves after 'basketball reasons' so...




> and just got Nash *for the price of a couple of bad contracts*. On top of that every single Suns related article gets trolled by Lakers fans.


actually it was 2 first round draft picks and 2 second round draft picks and 3 million in cash when the Suns would otherwise have gotten no compensation at all


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

e-monk said:


> wow - or how about he could have taken a lot more money from Toronto or New York and instead of a handful of picks the Suns could have gotten nothing at all, period, end of discussion? he could have walked leaving the suns without compensation, instead he worked out a deal where he took less money and the suns got something out of it - what a jerk he is


He wanted to be within an hours' flight to Phoenix, where his kids are. So he wasn't going to NY or TOR. Suns would have received Shumpert had he gone to NY by the way, but yes, end of the first round picks more than make up for that. I can't tell you how excited I am for the Suns to have the 26th pick in the draft next year! If they can draft gems like Lopez and Clark, I can't wait to see who they turn those draft picks into! Maybe it will be cash! I can't wait, I just want to fast forward to next year to find out! 

He couldn't have walked to the Lakers. He could have gone to Dallas, which is only a 2hr flight or Denver which is a 90minute flight. Both of those teams could have used a good PG. He chose LA. The FO is too stupid to realize that the fans don't like that. Well, I guess we've been pissed on for the last 8 years, so they figure might as well take a shit on us and see how that works.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hyperion said:


> It's a different hate. We hate them because they have been better. Granted we hate Horry, but that has a long history of him being a total douche. Pops, Duncan, Parker and Ginobili (as much as I hate his flopping) are class acts.
> 
> The Lakers are our division rival, who get handed EVERYTHING, and just got Nash for the price of a couple of bad contracts. On top of that every single Suns related article gets trolled by Lakers fans.


So do you hate the Celtics as much? They're not in your division but they've been handed just as we have. What about the Heat?

And I'm not really sure where you're getting the whole "Laker fans troll Suns related articles" from, but whatever. 

Two of the Lakers' biggest rivals are the Spurs and the Celtics. I dislike the Celtics more because they have beaten us more. I thought that was a fairly universal formula. It's not like I give two shits about the Clippers just because they are in our division, were gifted Chris Paul, and were better than us for one year (2006).


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Dallas is a sinking ship and Denver's not getting any better unless they get a legitimate star. Your team is gonna blow for a while anyway, so why does Nash to suffer on top of it?

This is why fans are stupid.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

e-monk said:


> dont hate them because they're smarter than everybody else - and dont let Herr Stern, Dan Gilbert and Mark Cuban hear you say that or they might douche this deal which actually benefits your team - this wouldnt be happening if it weren't for 'basketball reasons' and they wouldnt have the TPE if not for the Mavs moves after 'basketball reasons' so...


Oh no's! they's gonna take away useless draft picks! Nooo!!!

Yes, smarter than everyone else. You keep telling yourself that they somehow convinced Shaq to leave to Purple and Gold for "Basketball Reasons". Or they got Kobe because he didn't refuse to suit up for the hornets and they panic traded for Divac. While we're ignoring things, let's pretend that they weren't gifted Pau for nothing. No I don't care that baby Gasol is good now. He wasn't then. 

Then the one time the league steps in and says, "ummm... this is a little blatantly bad trade" everyone in LA shouts conspiracy against them. Let's check the scoreboard shall we? 5 championships in 12 years and the league is conspiring against you? Then you get Nash AND the pleasure of not having to pay a crappy end of the first round pick for 2 years and you're calling this a coupe for Phoenix?!?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Luke said:


> So do you hate the Celtics as much? They're not in your division but they've been handed just as we have. What about the Heat?
> 
> And I'm not really sure where you're getting the whole "Laker fans troll Suns related articles" from, but whatever.
> 
> Two of the Lakers' biggest rivals are the Spurs and the Celtics. I dislike the Celtics more because they have beaten us more. I thought that was a fairly universal formula. It's not like I give two shits about the Clippers just because they are in our division, were gifted Chris Paul, and were better than us for one year (2006).


And the Lakers have beaten the Suns a whole lot. But yes. I do dislike the Spurs, but not as much since their team was more legitimately developed. Other than Duncan, but I can't begrudge a team a superstar. Two, three four that I can begrudge. And yes, I root against the Celtics in everything.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Floods said:


> Dallas is a sinking ship and Denver's not getting any better unless they get a legitimate star. Your team is gonna blow for a while anyway, so why does Nash to suffer on top of it?
> 
> This is why fans are stupid.


Lakers are a sinking ship. They weren't getting better until they got ANOTHER legitimate star in Nash.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Hyperion said:


> Yes, smarter than everyone else. You keep telling yourself that they somehow convinced Shaq to leave to Purple and Gold for "Basketball Reasons". Or they got Kobe because he didn't refuse to suit up for the hornets and they panic traded for Divac. *While we're ignoring things, let's pretend that they weren't gifted Pau for nothing. No I don't care that baby Gasol is good now. He wasn't then.*


Terrible, terrible, terrible logic.



> Then the one time the league steps in and says, "ummm... this is a little blatantly bad trade" everyone in LA shouts conspiracy against them. Let's check the scoreboard shall we? 5 championships in 12 years and the league is conspiring against you? Then you get Nash AND the pleasure of not having to pay a crappy end of the first round pick for 2 years and you're calling this a coupe for Phoenix?!?


The Chris Paul thing was pretty blatant collusion. The other owners were mad the Lakers fleeced everybody yet again and got ANOTHER star. But thanks to the idiotic way the Hornets situation was handled, the other owners actually had a direct say in what went on with a competing franchise. They exercised it and screwed the Lakers out of a clean trade. Collusion.

Just stop talking. You're making yourself look like a god damn fool.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Hyperion said:


> Lakers are a sinking ship. They weren't getting better until they got ANOTHER legitimate star in Nash.


Nash would have done nothing for either Dallas or Denver. Neither is close enough to a championship for Nash to make a difference. LA is two years removed from consecutive titles with the core pieces still intact, and Nash was a PERFECT fit for them.

How butthurt can one person be?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Floods is right. If Dallas had retained Chandler and some of their other core guys then sure, that would be an okay situation. But at this point? Absolutely not. The Lakers were the best option if he wants to win titles.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Floods said:


> The difference between Nash and Fisher is that Nash can actually do something other than sit on the perimeter and hoist up threes.


Don't you dare say Fisher is not still a top 5 flopper in this league, even at his advanced age.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hyperion said:


> Oh no's! they's gonna take away useless draft picks! Nooo!!!
> 
> Yes, smarter than everyone else. You keep telling yourself that they somehow convinced Shaq to leave to Purple and Gold for "Basketball Reasons". Or they got Kobe because he didn't refuse to suit up for the hornets and they panic traded for Divac.


see this is what I mean - you're delusional - they offered Shaq the biggest contract in the history of the game (at the time) and had to move a bunch of pieces to clear that space - no one gave them anything they didnt pay for

as part of that effort to clear space they traded an all star center in his physical prime for a 17 year old project (and btw that deal (Divac for the 13th pick) was in place before Kobe was even selected so check your facts)



> While we're ignoring things, let's pretend that they weren't gifted Pau for nothing. No I don't care that baby Gasol is good now. He wasn't then.


basketball reasons chief - the Griz got picks, young prospects and plenty of cap space for a guy who had lead them to back-to-back 22 win seasons and look at them now - they did pretty well out of the deal and that's without the commisioner 'rigging the lottery' for them either



> Then the one time the league steps in and says, "ummm... this is a little blatantly bad trade" everyone in LA shouts conspiracy against them. Let's check the scoreboard shall we?


really? what did the Hornets walk away with again? Gordon just signed a max contract with someone else (I know the Hornets can still match but he clearly doesnt want to be there) - so what was it the hornets got?



> 5 championships in 12 years and the league is conspiring against you?


yep, blatantly so - or did you miss the lock-out and the ramifications of the new CBA? seriously - that's like the worst kept secret ever - the Lakers were one of the few teams actually making money and the new CBA harrison bergerons the shit out them - it jsut happened last year - you can google it



> Then you get Nash AND the pleasure of not having to pay a crappy end of the first round pick for 2 years and you're calling this a coupe for Phoenix?!?


whether or not the picks are crappy are up to the team doing the drafting but the end of round contracts are no more onerous than most vet min contracts so again - fact check

anyway all said and done Im not sure how the Lakers getting the better end of the deal in any way contradicts my contention that they're smarter - otherwise you have a long way to go to prove some kind of league wide conspiracy to enable the Lakers which especially in light of the new CBA (not to mention recent statements by crying little bitches like Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert (who both ironically then turned around and got abused by the Lakers in subsequent deals thank you)) is an absurd comment


----------



## kbdullah (Jul 8, 2010)

I disagree w/ Hyperion. I don't even think Nash originally wanted to go to the Lakers, anyway. He thought he was going to New York, but Toronto screwed New York over w/ the Fields offer. Going to Toronto is no different from staying in Phoenix really. Phoenix offered him a poor deal and drafted a replacement. He's got to go somewhere and the Lakers stepped up and made the offer.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> dont hate them because they're smarter than everybody else - and dont let Herr Stern, Dan Gilbert and Mark Cuban hear you say that or they might douche this deal which actually benefits your team - this wouldnt be happening if it weren't for 'basketball reasons' and they wouldnt have the TPE if not for the Mavs moves after 'basketball reasons' so...


Jesus titty****ing christ you Laker fans produce more whine than ****ing France. Hey, you guys get to complain about being oppressed _after_ the NBA forces you to carry a ****ing dead man on your salary cap for five ****ing years.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Jesus titty****ing christ you Laker fans produce more whine than ****ing France. Hey, you guys get to complain about being oppressed _after_ the NBA forces you to carry a ****ing dead man on your salary cap for five ****ing years.


Red should never have drafted a dead guy in the first place - I know he was innovative and all but there are limits


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> really? what did the Hornets walk away with again? Gordon just signed a max contract with someone else (I know the Hornets can still match but he clearly doesnt want to be there) - so what was it the hornets got?


I know, right? I mean they could have had Lamar Odom sitting at home pouting, the heart & soul of a .500 team that couldn't make the playoffs and no second lottery pick, which would have saved them millions! And instead of getting stuck with Basel Davis they would have been in a position to land Andre Drummond! Oh, of course, they would lost the point guard they were getting from Houston for nothing. But they would have been able to build a powerhouse around a shooting guard with an injury history longer than Long Dong Silver's meatsabre and a rapidly imploding 32 year old roleplayer on a near max contract! 

(Hint, the team that got ****ed in that transaction wasn't the Lakers, who were getting to dump bad contracts, but the Celtics who got it from both directions. Because they made the best offer for Paul and the deal that actually happened wrecked the value of the draftpick that they had coming from the Clippers.)


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> Red should never have drafted a dead guy in the first place - I know he was innovative and all but there are limits


Dude, seriously, you guys are still whining about the Chris Paul deal when LA was offering the worst possible package and acting like its rejection is evidence of the league's vendetta against you. Do you hear Boston fans complaining? Unlike you guys we actually got screwed in the Paul trade scenario, both in terms of getting the best offer rejected and in terms of the actual deal destroying the value of one of their few trade assets.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

dude the original deal also involved picks and more actual value - what they would have done with it was up to them but the only real difference in favor of the second deal was contract duration - they cashed out, that is all

and btw Stern is not a seer so your 20-20 hindsight assessment of Odom's value is bullshit (as it has been the last umpteen times you've clung to it)


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Dude, seriously, you guys are still whining about the Chris Paul deal when LA was offering the worst possible package and acting like its rejection is evidence of the league's vendetta against you. Do you hear Boston fans complaining? Unlike you guys we actually got screwed in the Paul trade scenario, both in terms of getting the best offer rejected and in terms of the actual deal destroying the value of one of their few trade assets.


I dont know what you're all butt hurt about - the Hornets walked away with less than that Grizzlies did for Pau but somehow the Lakers screwed the Grizzlies (for a lesser player) while the Hornets made out by trading away a better player for less - your bias is showing

and you're just dumb if you dont think that the Lakers got screwed by the aftermath of Stern's actions (the debasement of Odom's value for instance - the fact that they had added players better suited for a real PG driven offense which never materialized)


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> dude the original deal also involved picks and more actual value


Oh, right, I forgot. Late first round picks!!!!! Teh ossum!!!! 



e-monk said:


> and btw Stern is not a seer so your 20-20 hindsight assessment of Odom's value is bullshit (as it has been the last umpteen times you've clung to it)


So when you're a Laker fan crying about oppression you get to look back with rose coloured glasses and sing the praises of crappy offers that your team made, but those of us who said, _at the time_, that it was a crappy deal, laying out in explicit terms why it sucked, only to see that we were 100% in the right, can't actually point back? Odom is a roleplayer level talent _when he's motivated_ which there was a 0% chance that he'd be playing for a bottom-dweller.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

e-monk said:


> I dont know what you're all butt hurt about - the Hornets walked away with less than that Grizzlies did for Pau but somehow the Lakers screwed the Grizzlies (for a lesser player) while the Hornets made out by trading away a better player for less - your bias is showing


What the **** are you babbling about? At the time of the Gashole trade I was one of the few people here that said it was a good deal for the Grizzlies, and Marc Gasol turned out even better than I expected, so it turned out to be a great one for them. I have no idea what any of this has to do with the Chris Paul trade. The Lakers offer was far worse than the deal that actually happened, _which was worse than what Boston offered for Paul_. And, of course, by sending Paul to the Clippers, Boston got screwed by ending up with the 22nd pick in the 2012 draft rather than a pick in the 11-14 range. 

So, yeah, unlike the Lakers, Boston _actually_ got screwed in the CP3 deal. Hell, I even forgot the third way, because when Demps was scheming a second way to send Paul to LA for toxic contracts part of the deal was Jermaine O'Neal's expiring contract and draft picks for David West. Which might have made just _a little_ difference to Boston's fortunes this year as they ended up with Brandon Bass as their starting PF instead.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> Dude, seriously, you guys are still whining about the Chris Paul deal when LA was offering the worst possible package and acting like its rejection is evidence of the league's vendetta against you. Do you hear Boston fans complaining? Unlike you guys we actually got screwed in the Paul trade scenario, both in terms of getting the best offer rejected and in terms of the actual deal destroying the value of one of their few trade assets.


That's not the point. The Lakers and Hornets agreed on the terms of the trade. Whether you or some other guy on a message board think it was a fair trade or not is irrelevant. The other owners (read: competing franchises) rejected it because it would have made the Lakers a powerhouse , and because the deal would have meant less luxury tax money from the Lakers into the other owners' pockets. They didn't give a rat's ass about the Hornets, and it's incredibly naive to pretend that they did. It. Was. Collusion.

Yeah, the Celtics got screwed too, indirectly. How that's at all pertinent to this I have no idea.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

The Lakers agreed to that trade with an employee of a league owned team. They did not agree to that trade with the person responsible for deciding if that trade was made. It's a very easy concept to grasp. I could agree with Larry Ellison to buy 30% of Microsoft, but that wouldn't get me much because he doesn't own that.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

The league is to blame for handling the Hornets situation so terribly and putting themselves in that position. But that doesn't change the fact that it was collusion. The other owners did not have the best interest of the Hornets at heart.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Floods said:


> That's not the point. The Lakers and Hornets agreed on the terms of the trade. Whether you or some other guy on a message board think it was a fair trade or not is irrelevant. The other owners (read: competing franchises) rejected it because it would have made the Lakers a powerhouse , and because the deal would have meant less luxury tax money from the Lakers into the other owners' pockets. They didn't give a rat's ass about the Hornets, and it's incredibly naive to pretend that they did. It. Was. Collusion.
> 
> Yeah, the Celtics got screwed by the deal as well. How that's at all pertinent to this I have no idea.


No, the Hornets' owners rejected the trade, for the same reason that owners have been rejecting trades since the beginning of the league. No NBA trade is final until all the teams owners sign off on them. It was no different than Boston's owners rejecting a couple of different Ray Allen deals in 2010 because the trades had the effect of leaving Boston's payroll in the $85-$90 million range and they were looking to reduce payroll.

In this case the rest of the NBA was in no way obligated to subsidise the Lakers. Because saddling the Hornets with all those toxic deals, and no actual talent, would have cost the NBA millions in re-sale value on the franchise. So, umm, yeah, no oppression. Just common sense. To be brutally frank, there was no way that any actual single owner would have approved of that deal, so it's a non-issue all the way around.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

The owners did not do it for the Hornets, they did it to sabotage the Lakers. The franchise's situation as a whole was poorly handled by the league from day one, but that doesn't mean it's not collusion.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Floods said:


> The league is to blame for handling the Hornets situation so terribly and putting themselves in that position. But that doesn't change the fact that it was collusion. The other owners did not have the best interest of the Hornets at heart.


Actually they did. Demps' Laker employment application saddled the Hornets with bad long-term deals. Without anything to show for it. In these sorts of trades the team giving away the superstar _unload_ toxic contracts, not take them back.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> Actually they did. Demps' Laker employment application saddled the Hornets with bad long-term deals. Without anything to show for it. In these sorts of trades the team giving away the superstar _unload_ toxic contracts, not take them back.


Again, the other owners didn't do this for New Orleans. They could give a **** what the Hornets got in the deal, they only cared about whether the Lakers lost what they deemed to be the appropriate pound of flesh in return. They didn't, so the other owners got butthurt, and they killed the deal specifically to sabotage the Lakers (their competition). Collusion.

Gilbert's e-mail to Stern:



> Commissioner,
> 
> It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.
> 
> ...


I don't see anything about the poor, incompetent Hornets in there, and how this hurts their resale value and gives them a glut of useless veterans. Just the usual 'this deal is too good for the lakers! no fair! F!' bullshit typical of bitter small-market owners in charge of little dick franchises with no hope of attracting meaningful talent without gratuitously overpaying. This had nothing to do with the Hornets and everything to do the Lakers.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

looks like the biggest concern for Gilbert was how the Lakers got out from under having to pay luxury tax which would have gone where....? and then his next biggest concern was uh-oh they could still go after Howard?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

The league was trying to get out of owning the Hornets and keep them in New Orleans. That was the entire logic behind buying them in the first place. Stern made a decision which made the team more attractive to a local owner. He got exactly what he wanted and I don't think he cares about anything else at this point.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

e-monk said:


> looks like the biggest concern for Gilbert was how the Lakers got out from under having to pay luxury tax which would have gone where....?


Gilbert's and the other owners pockets.

Yeah, the value and well-being of the Hornets was clearly the main thing on his mind.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Diable said:


> The league was trying to get out of owning the Hornets and keep them in New Orleans. That was the entire logic behind buying them in the first place. Stern made a decision which made the team more attractive to a local owner. He got exactly what he wanted and I don't think he cares about anything else at this point.


So what?

Bending over backwards to keep the franchise in that black hole of a market is hilariously dumb, but that's a whole different discussion.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

After Katrina the NBA made a commitment to New Orleans. If you don't like it when someone keeps their commitments that's your business. I am sure that the league mostly sees it as a PR exercise, but you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I don't care where it originated, it was really stupid of the league, and it does nothing to change the fact that the owners colluded against LA.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I'll try to schedule some time to cry for the woebegotten Lakers.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I accept your surrender.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Floods said:


> Again, the other owners didn't do this for New Orleans. They could give a **** what the Hornets got in the deal, they only cared about whether the Lakers lost what they deemed to be the appropriate pound of flesh in return. They didn't, so the other owners got butthurt, and they killed the deal specifically to sabotage the Lakers (their competition).


Again. No. Saddling a franchise with long-term bad deals while removing its only asset is actually demolishing value. The other owners really don't give a shit about LA or anyone else. What was pissing them off was that the Lakers were asking the rest of league to subsidise them. The Buss family is loaded. If they really wanted the deal to go through they should have offered to pay 100% of the freight on the contracts being dumped on New Orleans. If they were paying the $70 million difference the trade would have gone through in a heartbeat. But they wanted the NBA to eat $70 million so that they could have Paul. 

There just isn't an owner in the NBA that would ever have voted to approve that deal for their own team, they were in no way obligated to approve it just because it was the Hornets. So, yeah, they actually were looking out for the best interests of the Hornets because they rejected an openly shitty deal. And as many of us spelled out in precision why it was a shitty deal, and the NBA season showed that we were entirely correct, there's no way to argue this without donning a tinfoil hat.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> Again. No. Saddling a franchise with long-term bad deals while removing its only asset is actually demolishing value.


I've never even argued otherwise. But it's not the reason the owners quashed the trade. Therefore it doesn't mean anything.



> The other owners really don't give a shit about LA or anyone else. What was pissing them off was that the Lakers were asking the rest of league to subsidise them.


So it was about the Lakers. They were dissatisfied with the amount of flesh the Lakers parted with to get an agreement out of Demps. So they stepped in and blocked a competing franchise from making a good trade. They were also mad about getting less luxury tax money from LA to stuff in their pockets. Collusion.



> The Buss family is loaded. If they really wanted the deal to go through they should have offered to pay 100% of the freight on the contracts being dumped on New Orleans. If they were paying the $70 million difference the trade would have gone through in a heartbeat. But they wanted the NBA to eat $70 million so that they could have Paul.


Are you insane? 



> There just isn't an owner in the NBA that would ever have voted to approve that deal for their own team, they were in no way obligated to approve it just because it was the Hornets. So, yeah, they actually were looking out for the best interests of the Hornets because they rejected an openly shitty deal. And as many of us spelled out in precision why it was a shitty deal, and the NBA season showed that we were entirely correct, there's no way to argue this without donning a tinfoil hat.


Sabotaging the Lakers and inadvertently saving the Hornets from themselves =/= having the best interests of the Hornets at heart.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Stop talking about the Chris Paul trade in a thread about a yet to be finalized trade for a star point guard going to the Lakers.... bad vibes...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Floods said:


> I've never even argued otherwise. But it's not the reason the owners quashed the trade. Therefore it doesn't mean anything.


The Hornets' owners squashed the trade because it sucked. Just as owners have been doing since the NBA started 60+ years ago.



Floods said:


> So it was about the Lakers. They were dissatisfied with the amount of flesh the Lakers parted with to get an agreement out of Demps. So they stepped in and blocked a competing franchise from making a good trade. They were also mad about getting less luxury tax money from LA to stuff in their pockets.


Not half as angry as getting presented with a multimillion dollar bill to _help out_ one of the richest teams in the NBA. The result would have been exactly the same if the team begging for a subsidy were the Knicks.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> The Hornets' owners squashed the trade because it sucked. Just as owners have been doing since the NBA started 60+ years ago.


The 'Hornets' owners' quashed the deal because the Lakers won the trade. They didn't give the shit that it made another competitor worse.



> Not half as angry as getting presented with a multimillion dollar bill to _help out_ one of the richest teams in the NBA. The result would have been exactly the same if the team begging for a subsidy were the Knicks.


This doesn't dispel collusion, it just shows how horribly the NBA handled the Hornets' situation from day one.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

League never lost any money owning the Hornets and they ended up getting exactly what they wanted. Owning the Hornets was a wash for the league and that's about as good as you could expect from them. They broke even and achieved the result they desired. That hardly screams mismanagement to me. If you didn't want the Hornets in New Orleans you should have bought them yourself and rented some moving vans.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

They bent over backwards to keep one of their teams in a shit market. Instead of handing it off to say, Larry Ellison and letting him take it elsewhere.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Floods said:


> The 'Hornets' owners' quashed the deal because the Lakers won the trade. They didn't give the shit that it made another competitor worse.


Again. No. They squashed it because Houston and LA were dumping all their toxic contracts on the NBA. And if you look at every other public complaint owners made that was first and foremost. Why should the rest of the NBA be spending money to help out the Lakers and Rockets? The _exact same thing_ would have happened if the other two teams were the Knicks and Celtics. 

Again, they couldn't have cared less about the talent if they tried. The other owners complaints about the spending on the Hornets went back to 2011 when they first took the team over. And then they were complaining about a few paltry millions, not the seventy odd million being dumped on them in the Laker fanboy scenario. If Houston and LA were paying for the privilege the deal would cruised through approval. But they weren't. They were specifically asking the rest of the NBA to give them money. The rest of the league told them to get ****ed.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Floods said:


> Yeah, how dare Nash not sign with that freakshow in New York, or Toronto's waste of a franchise, or the sinking ship that is Dallas. How dare he want to actually contend for a ring after the cheapskates running the Suns screwed his team out of one, maybe two. :2ti:


The problem , for me anyway, isn't that he wanted to go there. I mean it sucks but that's his decision. It's that he asked the suns to allow him to go there and still get paid. If he really wanted to win a title or be closer to his family then he can tale less money like every other title chaser. As for the picks, let's be real those are nothing special. The knicks sign and trade would of been a hell of a lot better. But I'm not bitter. I love the direction of our team not. That was his choice, and whatever boos he gets will be deserved in my opinion. But it won't last long.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I think it's always lame to boo a guy that's given your franchise so much. Regardless of how shitty you think it is that he's going to the Lakers it doesn't come close to outweighing everything else he's done with your franchise.

Shaq didn't get booed when he returned after forcing his way out.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

Nobody remembers the trade deadline the year prior, when Cuban went off on Stern and the league for taking on salary in the Marcus Thornton deal? How quickly people forget...

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2011/02/23/cuban-angered-by-hornets-trade/



> Mavericks owner Mark Cuban isn’t too happy with the league-owned and funded New Orleans Hornets taking back salary and sending cash in today’s trade for Sacramento forward Carl Landry. That a franchise previously on such shaky financial ground that it needed an NBA bailout earlier this season actually increased its payroll greatly irritated Cuban.
> 
> “That’s just wrong. That’s just wrong. That’s just absolutely, positively wrong,” an incredulous Cuban said before tonight’s Dallas-Utah game. “I’ll probably go against the grain from everybody else, but that is so far wrong that it’s not even close.





> The NBA — Cuban and the other 28 owners – purchased the Hornets from troubled former owner George Shinn in December for approximately $300 million. The league set the Hornets’ operating budget and funds the team, which is operated by David Stern-appointed chairman Jac Sperling.
> 
> The idea was broached that the Hornets-Kings deal amounts to a form of revenue sharing and the other owners helped subsidize the trade.
> 
> *“I don’t need to be competing economically with the league and myself,” Cuban said.*


However, it turns into a conspiracy against the Lakers when the Hornets become the Houston Rockets of New Orleans overnight, while the league is attempting to clear their payroll to sell the team...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Nash would have done nothing for either Dallas or Denver. Neither is close enough to a championship for Nash to make a difference. LA is two years removed from consecutive titles with the core pieces still intact, and Nash was a PERFECT fit for them.
> 
> How butthurt can one person be?


So LA is 2 years removed so Nash is a perfect fit, but Dallas 1 year removed is not?


Thought I'd point out your idiocy there. Nash is a great fit in Dallas.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

R-Star said:


> So LA is 2 years removed so Nash is a perfect fit, but Dallas 1 year removed is not?
> 
> 
> Thought I'd point out your idiocy there. Nash is a great fit in Dallas.


since the championship Dallas has lost these players

J.J Barea (key player)
Jason Kidd (major key player)
Tyson Chandler (major key player)
Stevenson
Jason Terry (major key player)
Caron Butler 

Lakers lost these players since the championship.

Lamar odom (major key player)
Shannon Brown
Derek Fisher (key player)
Jordan Farmar

Dallas didnt win 1 game this year...and lost MORE key players from the championship run.


Nash chosing Dallas would have been so stupid.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

doctordrizzay said:


> since the championship Dallas has lost these players
> 
> J.J Barea (key player)
> Jason Kidd (major key player)
> ...


Yea.... I mean if you say it, it must be right.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> So LA is 2 years removed so Nash is a perfect fit, but Dallas 1 year removed is not?


Not since they let Tyson Chandler walk. You forget that he was the anchor of the defense that shut everybody down in the 2011 playoffs?



> Thought I'd point out your idiocy there.


And you failed.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Not since they let Tyson Chandler walk. You forget that he was the anchor of the defense that shut everybody down in the 2011 playoffs?
> 
> 
> 
> And you failed.


Nah, I didn't really. Want to explain to me how Kobe and Nash will co exist together? How it makes Kobe a better player or even the same quality of player?

No?

Floods doesn't like actually talking about basketball and breaking it down? Oh ok.

Well I'll talk about it anyways.

Steve Nash has made a career out of making average players look great, and bad players look average. Players who can't make their own shot end up getting a ton of open looks because hes the best passer we've seen in quite a long time, and he opens the floor with his own offense as well. 

Putting him on the Mavs and making a few other moves is a hell of a lot bigger move than putting him on the Lakers and telling Kobe to turn into a complimentary player.


And its pretty funny that the Mavs post season is brought up seeing as the Lakers did about as well against OKC as the Mavs did. 


Please floods, enlighten us with your deep understanding of the game.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hey drizzay I think Phil Jackson retiring is also worth mentioning. But hey your logic (or w/e they call it now a days) is your logic I guess.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

R Star you said it yourself, Pau Gasol is underrated on this forum. So with that said, the guy is great, we all know that. So is Bynum. Artest has three point shooting abilities (well...barely), and yes, Kobe also has three point shooting. Granted, it probably will be hard at first for them to co exist, but I doubt Kobe will get in too much for Nash to not be effective still. 

I won't deny that Nash would be a great fit in Dallas, of course he would. Anyone who denies that is a idiot. But Dallas just lost two key players, with Dirk being the only big time player for them left on the team atm, the Lakers still have the strong core from their last two title wins on their team (despite two of them aging), and Bynum has become an all star center. Come on now, at this point it's pretty obvious that he has a greater chance of winning in LA then he does in Dallas.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> R Star you said it yourself, Pau Gasol is underrated on this forum. So with that said, the guy is great, we all know that. So is Bynum. Artest has three point shooting abilities (well...barely), and yes, Kobe also has three point shooting. Granted, it probably will be hard at first for them to co exist, but I doubt Kobe will get in too much for Nash to not be effective still.
> 
> I won't deny that Nash would be a great fit in Dallas, of course he would. Anyone who denies that is a idiot. But Dallas just lost two key players, with Dirk being the only big time player for them left on the team atm, the Lakers still have the strong core from their last two title wins on their team (despite two of them aging), and Bynum has become an all star center. Come on now, at this point it's pretty obvious that he has a greater chance of winning in LA then he does in Dallas.


I don't argue that. I just thinking people are writing Dallas off far too quick. 

I posted in the Lakers thread I think Bynum and Pau will benefit greatly from Nash. Kobe's stats are going to drop though without a doubt.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Nah, I didn't really. Want to explain to me how Kobe and Nash will co exist together? How it makes Kobe a better player or even the same quality of player?


What? Why would Kobe's game slide? 

Nash can take the ball handling burden away from Kobe, he'll actually look to move the ball, and his outside shooting is lethal. As many Laker fans have said, the two biggest weaknesses in LA's offense this past year was ball movement and perimeter shooting. Doesn't take a genius to see that Nash is an ideal fit.

The biggest winner is Bynum, who had way too few FGA for someone with his post skills. Nash can get him more shots AND provide a lethal shooting threat that the defense cannot ignore. Bynum can put up well over 20 PPG next year if he gets the minutes (no reason to assume he won't).



> Steve Nash has made a career out of making average players look great, and bad players look average. Players who can't make their own shot end up getting a ton of open looks because hes the best passer we've seen in quite a long time, and he opens the floor with his own offense as well.


Thank you, captain obvious. What deep, startling insight this is.



> Putting him on the Mavs and making a few other moves is a hell of a lot bigger move than putting him on the Lakers and telling Kobe to turn into a complimentary player.


No, it's not. The Mavs won in 2011 because of their defense. Take Chandler away, and they're the same old Mavs. Nash will not change that.



> And its pretty funny that the Mavs post season is brought up seeing as the Lakers did about as well against OKC as the Mavs did.


The hell are you talking about?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> What? Why would Kobe's game slide?
> 
> Nash can take the ball handling burden away from Kobe, he'll actually look to move the ball, and his outside shooting is lethal. As many Laker fans have said, the two biggest weaknesses in LA's offense this past year was ball movement and perimeter shooting. Doesn't take a genius to see that Nash is an ideal fit.
> 
> ...


So again, Kobe goes from being the primary ball handler to a spot up shooter? He's not only going to be fine with that, but thrive?

And if Bynums shot attemts are going to go way up like you've said(which I agree with), where are they going to come from? I'll give you a hint, they're going to come from Kobe.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> So again, Kobe goes from being the primary ball handler to a spot up shooter?


Where did I say that?



> He's not only going to be fine with that, but thrive?
> 
> And if Bynums shot attemts are going to go way up like you've said(which I agree with), where are they going to come from? I'll give you a hint, they're going to come from Kobe.


Regardless of whether that's true or not, if Kobe _isn't_ okay with it, then it's his own fault seeing as he made the key recruiting push for Nash.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Where did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of whether that's true or not, if Kobe _isn't_ okay with it, then it's his own fault seeing as he made the key recruiting push for Nash.


You asked how Kobe would slide. I explained it to you.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how we've gone from "Amazing move" to "It's Kobes fault if it doesn't work!"

It's either the amazing move you're making it out to be, or it isn't.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Why are you making things up?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Why are you making things up?


Elaborate. Even though I know where you're trying to take this and have the next reply ready.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

You're stuffing words in my mouth. I never said Kobe would become a spot up shooter (laughable idea), and I never pulled an about face on the idea that is a great move for LA. You keep putting words in my mouth, I'll keep firing out half-hearted replies.

Nevertheless it's funny how quickly you dropped the Mavs part of the discussion once I called out your bullshit. Yeah, Steve Nash would have really filled the void left by Tyson Chandler in that championship puzzle, huh?


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

You know what, that's my last post of the night on this issue. Really not in the mood for a multi-page war right now. You're more than welcome to continue though.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> You're stuffing words in my mouth. I never said Kobe would become a spot up shooter (laughable idea), and I never pulled an about face on the idea that is a great move for LA. You keep putting words in my mouth, I'll keep firing out half-hearted replies.
> 
> Nevertheless it's funny how quickly you dropped the Mavs part of the discussion once I called out your bullshit. *Yeah, Steve Nash would have really filled the void left by Tyson Chandler in that championship puzzle, huh?*


I'm putting words in your mouth yet the bolded part of your post is now my opinion? :laugh:

You're leaving for the sole reason that you're a hack floods. You have a tired pathetic act of "I didn't say that! NO! LINK IT!"


"I didn't say it was a great move for LA!" Yea..... I guess saying Nash is the perfect fit for the Lakers isn't about the same. Sorry, I misquoted you there. It was PERFECT. I forgot for a second you capitalized the word perfect. I can see how that's not similar to "doing an about face and saying its a great move for LA."
Nor did you start a thread in LA's forum about the trade telling them how good it was and how you were pulling for them to win another title or two now.

:laugh:


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Am I the only one who thinks Kobe might actually benefit more from having Nash on his team?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Am I the only one who thinks Kobe might actually benefit more from having Nash on his team?


Not sure. Obviously I'm the other side of the argument though.


Of course Kobe taking a few less shots a game is not a bad thing at all. I think he plays best when hes not chucking. I do not ever remember a time where Kobe was primarily playing set plays where he is the guy waiting to get the ball passed to him though. Where he's the guy running screens and playing a complimentary role.

Kobes been one of the best players we've ever seen because Kobe knows hes one of the best players we've ever seen. He's cocky as ****. And I'm not saying this in a "**** you guys, I'm taking 25 shots a game!" way, I'm saying that when the Lakers are down in a game, Kobes mind is going to tell him to get them back in it. Not set up a play and wait for a pass. 


Again, we'll have to wait and see. I think its a good move for the Lakers and they're a better team for it, I'm just interested in seeing how Kobe and Nash mesh together.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Ummm.... just because we cheered him for 8 years doesn't mean we can't boo him for 3. He went to the one team ALL Suns fans despise. Not even a hesitation about it. He went there because he doesn't give a shit about Phoenix fans or the organization. Hasn't really ever cared. Suns gave him the most money to compete and he acted accordingly.
> 
> Oh and he'll go into the HOF in a LAKERS jersey because that was his last team that he played for.
> 
> It's kinda funny though that Fisher must be sitting at home thinking, "Wait, they told me that I was too old to be their starting PG!"


Wait until we get Shane Doan out of the Coyotes. Then Phoenix fans can really start emasculating themselves in the street. 



> Paola Boivin ‏@PaolaBoivin
> 
> RT @ZonaFan29: @PaolaBoivin After losing Nash to Lakers, I think heads may start to spontaneously combust if Doan somehow ends up w/ Kings.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ron said:


> Wait until we get Shane Doan out of the Coyotes. Then Phoenix fans can really start emasculating themselves in the street.


Doaner to the Kings would be solid. It would start to be a little stupid with how many big bodies who can hit you guys would be putting on the ice.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Come on guys...you are both great posters, let's keep it civil and on point please.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Doaner to the Kings would be solid. It would start to be a little stupid with how many big bodies who can hit you guys would be putting on the ice.


Yeah, we might be a little top-heavy in that department...but what I was thinking he can be our "MWP" guy that the Lakers had in 2010...the one guy on the team without a ring so hungry that he can make a difference in a playoff game or two.

He would be a perfect fit in the locker room...there is even a hate-to-love moment...when Kobe and Artest nearly fought in a playoff series the year before, just like Doan and Brown going at it in the shake-hand line...the number of parallels between the two sports and players is really...astonishing, creepy, strange, you name it.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ron said:


> Yeah, we might be a little top-heavy in that department...but what I was thinking he can be our "MWP" guy that the Lakers had in 2010...the one guy on the team without a ring so hungry that he can make a difference in a playoff game or two.
> 
> He would be a perfect fit in the locker room...there is even a hate-to-love moment...when Kobe and Artest nearly fought in a playoff series the year before, just like Doan and Brown going at it in the shake-hand line...the number of parallels between the two sports and players is really...astonishing, creepy, strange, you name it.


Will be interesting to see if they get him. More important to the Kings is if Quick can keep it up. Goalies are so up and down in the NHL its hard to ever know who's going to compete every year.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Will be interesting to see if they get him. More important to the Kings is if Quick can keep it up. Goalies are so up and down in the NHL its hard to ever know who's going to compete every year.


I agree, but Quick has been coming on for three years now, so I am hoping (as are the Kings) that this guy is not just a flash in the pan.

It really is amazing how Mason flamed out, and how Fleury had a nightmare round against the Flyers. A lot of this is about confidence. Even though Bernier has requested a trade, I am thinking that Lombardi is going to hold on to him a bit longer to see how Quick does respond after going to the mountaintop.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

About every year 1 good goalie has a terrible year and some previously unheralded guy moves into the top 5 out of nowhere. If anything it keeps things entertaining. As far as Bernier it would be nice for you guys to keep one of the better young goalie prospects out there, but we'll see if its an option or not once the season rolls around.

We'll leave this for the hockey thread though before we get piled on with the "hockey sucks!" posts. 

I'm heading for a nap anyways. First night back at work and nothing to do. Nice way to ease into a 2 week hitch.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

R-Star said:


> About every year 1 good goalie has a terrible year and some previously unheralded guy moves into the top 5 out of nowhere. If anything it keeps things entertaining. As far as Bernier it would be nice for you guys to keep one of the better young goalie prospects out there, but we'll see if its an option or not once the season rolls around.
> 
> *We'll leave this for the hockey thread though before we get piled on with the "hockey sucks!" posts. *
> 
> I'm heading for a nap anyways. First night back at work and nothing to do. Nice way to ease into a 2 week hitch.


Actually was waiting on that from someone...  I don't care, its all about hockey these days in L.A. anyway.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Suns fans gave Nash a standing ovation in the last game of the year when we figured we wouldnt see him in a suns uni ever again. I am more than ok with them booing him or anyone else. Its part of the game.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

They can boo him if they want, but considering they cared more about salary than actually building a championship caliber team, can you really be upset?

Anyway, I like this. You can reduce Kobe's minutes- get him in the 32mpg area. I'd even limit Nash to 28/30mins. Scatter the two, and have Nash playing 8-12 minutes during the time Kobe's resting, which would allow him to help the second unit, but also get enough time on the court with Kobe to learn to play together. Pace them and push the focal point of the offense inside, and then come playoff time bump their minutes up.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

it would show a lack of class for suns fans to boo him - he's the best thing to happen to the team in maybe ever (who else is close? Westphal? Barkley?) and he didnt give up on the franchise, the franchise gave up on him


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> it would show a lack of class for suns fans to boo him - he's the best thing to happen to the team in maybe ever (who else is close? Westphal? Barkley?) and he didnt give up on the franchise, the franchise gave up on him


Yep. I'm pretty surprised with Suns fans reactions on here. Most of them seemed like they wanted to move on from the Nash era, now they're mad at him? Doesn't make sense.

If they boo him its disgusting. If Nash was 90% of the other players in the league he would have left already, or demanded a trade and shit talked the organization. 

Nash is a class act who gave a lot to Phoenix. The better ****ing cheer him when they see him next. I know I would.


----------



## Maravilla (Jul 6, 2010)

Meh, fans will be fans. I don't think that he WILL get booed, but I wouldn't be shocked. I wouldn't really care one way or another.

I am just happy to be moving forward and getting younger.. even if it means swallowing pride and hoping Michael Beasley does something with his life.


As for the trade, like I said: put your thumb over the name 'Lakers' and it is a good trade that helps everyone. The only disappointing thing was that he asked to go there and they helped him.

I don't expect much out of the picks, especially the first. But they have tools to work with now. The Suns have sold a lot of late 1st round picks that have panned out quite nicely around the league (Rondo: #21 overall, Ibaka: #24 overall, even Rudy Fernandez at #24 was useful once upon a time) , so I don't buy them being completely useless. They can always be used to make moves within the draft or in other capacities as well.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Nash being booed in Phoenix would be beyond retarded.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> Nash being booed in Phoenix would be beyond retarded.


He won't get booed except for a few a-holes...he's getting a standing ovation first time he goes back.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

I still can't believe there are people who are mad at Steve Nash. The guy is 39 years old, get over it. Hell there's a person in this forum who's dissing Nash right above his avatar (I won't name the name, but you know who you are). If this is the way you're going to react to Nash leaving the team that he played his heart out for and got nothing in return, to go play for a team where he could win a championship, one he has yet to get, then you don't deserve to have someone like Nash play for your team. Period.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

I love how they try to justify it by saying the Lakers are the enemy. The Lakers barely even know the Suns exist. :2ti:


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Floods said:


> I love how they try to justify it by saying the Lakers are the enemy. *The Lakers barely even know the Suns exist.* :2ti:


:2worf:


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

After reading Nash's side of the trade. Damnit Nash! Why did you have to play for such an incredulously inept franchise? They literally didn't call him or speak to him until he was, "He guys, what's going on?" Then they basically said to him, "We're going another direction. Where do you want to go?" Then Nash says, "I want to be close to my kids and on a team that can compete." So the management decides to send 2-time to Lakers. Nash is sorta okay with the trade because that's what the "team" wants. Basically he wouldn't have signed with them but since he was traded there, he's reluctantly going. Damnit. I now like the Lakers more than the Suns. I cannot believe the could do that to me! 20 years of loyalty undone. I now do not care if the Suns ever win again (as long as Sarver and other idiots are there).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> I love how they try to justify it by saying the Lakers are the enemy. The Lakers barely even know the Suns exist. :2ti:


I like all the Lakers posting you're doing these days. You're like their superfan. 

I just hope this doesn't interrupt with your Heat posting is all.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Hyperion, please, get over it. I doubt this is something Nash was "reluctant" to do. He made a choice. He knew what was going to happen. Plain and simple.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> After reading Nash's side of the trade. Damnit Nash! Why did you have to play for such an incredulously inept franchise? They literally didn't call him or speak to him until he was, "He guys, what's going on?" Then they basically said to him, "We're going another direction. Where do you want to go?" Then Nash says, "I want to be close to my kids and on a team that can compete." So the management decides to send 2-time to Lakers. Nash is sorta okay with the trade because that's what the "team" wants. Basically he wouldn't have signed with them but since he was traded there, he's reluctantly going. Damnit. I now like the Lakers more than the Suns. I cannot believe the could do that to me! 20 years of loyalty undone. I now do not care if the Suns ever win again (as long as Sarver and other idiots are there).


No one was holding a gun to his head. What is up with you? It's like you think this is some sort of movie plot.

It was his choice, and if he wins a ring with the Lakers he is gonna be grinning from ear to ear.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> I like all the Lakers posting you're doing these days. You're like their superfan.
> 
> I just hope this doesn't interrupt with your Heat posting is all.


Not like they just made a major trade and are in the thick of the Dwight rumors or anything.

And all the posting I've done has been in general, except for creating a thread with the news in their subforum, with maybe one reply on top of it.

Thanks for your concern though. Glad my posting habits are that high of a priority to you.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

R-Star said:


> *I'm not getting sucked in to wasting my time when in the end it will be some bs post of "Well I guess to the untrained eye it could look like I'm a Miami fan. But in reality..... blah blah blah"*


You're not getting sucked into wasting your time? Yet you've tried to instigate the same old argument between you two? Both of you stop derailing the thread now.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ben said:


> You're not getting sucked into wasting your time? Yet you've tried to instigate the same old argument between you two? Both of you stop derailing the thread now.


Shut the hell up Ben.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

R-Star said:


> That's fine buddy. I don't feel like doing the floods song and dance today.


Why not? You seemed ready to go a couple of posts ago. Something change your mind?



> We've been over this before. You posted more in the Heat forum then you even came close to in any other forum over the past 2 years. You hardly posted about the Celtics at all until playoff time. You're ashamed and embarrassed to admit you're a front runner.


I'm not a front runner. Ever since LeBron signed with the Heat, they've been far and away the most polarizing team in the league, and as such there's always a lot to talk about. What was there to talk about with the Celtics last season? They're getting old, they started the season terribly, everyone knows their best days are behind them, their legacy is secure. Yeah, great conversation fodder.

Or, you know, I could just quote the post where I already explained all this.



> That's fine. And there's no point going over it for the 1000th time. Your "link it! Quote it!" demands that you'll spew have already been linked in past threads. They've already been quoted.


No, they haven't. You just keep saying they've already been proven and quoted, when they never have.



> I'm not getting sucked in to wasting my time when in the end it will be some bs post of "Well I guess to the untrained eye _it could_ look like I'm a Miami fan. But in reality..... blah blah blah"
> 
> Nope. So we'll take your word on this one. You aren't a Miami fan. Good for you friend.


The only thing more hilarious than how far up my allegiances are on your priority list, is how rabidly you keep beating this issue, as if even if you were right (you're not), that would undermine my credibility in some way. Good stuff.

But go ahead and backpedal. It's interesting how much less important the internet becomes to you once you've been exposed for a fool.

Nighty night R-Star. Don't drink too much while you're stewing over your loss, or your baby will be at a higher risk for FAS.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Floods said:


> Why not? You seemed ready to go a couple of posts ago. Something change your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're kidding right? The reason I'm not getting into is because we've been through it. The same posters reading these posts have read the posts in the other threads. They read your pathetic reasons for "Well I don't post in the Celtics forum because no one else does (funny, I post plenty in the Pacers forum and its not busy there)." or "Well the reason I'm one of the most active Heat posters is because....."

Its funny that when you think you're winning, you start posting in cliche R-Star type as well. Yep. I'm backpedaling. I'm losing. I'm a fool.

No.

Its just the fact that even crazy, loves to fight on the internet R-Star has a breaking point. And at the end of the day arguing over and over with some pathetic front runner like yourself gets tiring. You posted probably about 10x more on the Heat than you did the Celtics over the past 2 years. Until they started making noise in the playoffs you weren't even paying attention to them. Then all the sudden its move over EH, Floods is the Celtics #1 fan.


You're a joke floods. And we've been over this far too many times when it comes to your fair weather fandom. 

But seeing as Ben and the other mods have probably had enough of this, go call me out in the rants forum if you'd like. I've been trying to end this for a couple posts already now.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Thought you weren't wasting your time?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Oh my go...SHUT UP ALREADY!!! Good ****ing god. I enjoy a good argument here and there but, holy shit, it seems like one simple reply between you two will ignite a argument between you guys, and the sad part is that we know it won't end without a mod stepping in. Please, end it, take it in a rant section, I don't care, just enough with the arguing already (you know there's something wrong here when me, of all people, is asking for an argument to stop).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Oh my go...SHUT UP ALREADY!!! Good ****ing god. I enjoy a good argument here and there but, holy shit, it seems like one simple reply between you two will ignite a argument between you guys, and the sad part is that we know it won't end without a mod stepping in. Please, end it, take it in a rant section, I don't care, just enough with the arguing already (you know there's something wrong here when me, of all people, is asking for an argument to stop).


Oh fine. If you put it like that we'll stop. You don't have to be so mean about it though.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

If I'm going to be strong armed into talking about the actual thread topic....

I think the Suns and Nash moving on was the right move for both sides. They aren't anywhere near contending and Nash is going to drop off sooner rather than later. Best for him to try to finish it out fighting for a ring. I'm not sure how he and Kobe fit together, but the Lakers are a sure fire contender with Nash.

From the Phoenix perspective, they need to rebuild, and they're doing just that. They got a nice replacement for Nash, a huge potential / huge nut case in Beasley, and could have a shot at Gordon. They could very well come out of losing Nash with a better team than they had last season, while also rebuilding and moving towards youth.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out on both sides, but there shouldn't be any hurt feelings on either side really.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> Oh my go...SHUT UP ALREADY!!! Good ****ing god. I enjoy a good argument here and there but, holy shit, it seems like one simple reply between you two will ignite a argument between you guys, and the sad part is that we know it won't end without a mod stepping in. Please, end it, take it in a rant section, I don't care, just enough with the arguing already (you know there's something wrong here when me, of all people, is asking for an argument to stop).


Yeah, you are new here.

But thanks, somehow you got R-Star to go back onto topic, man that takes real talent. I've been trying that for more than 10 years now with mixed results.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ron said:


> Yeah, you are new here.
> 
> But thanks, somehow you got R-Star to go back onto topic, man that takes real talent. I've been trying that for more than 10 years now with mixed results.


He just knows how to handle my ego. 

You guys have mismanaged me for years.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

R-Star said:


> He just knows how to handle my ego.
> 
> You guys have mismanaged me for years.


In all sincerity, I think you are right.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I will pretend that is a compliment.


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I will pretend that is a compliment.


It's a compliment and its also a revelation for me (and hopefully others as well), in how to treat these back-and-forths. It really comes out to kind of the same policy with a new twist (attack the post, not the poster) and rather to bitch about R-Star and others, just remove the offending post and appeal to your good nature. Bottom line is you are a valued poster that has a lot to add (as do all of our posters) without going into attack mode.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ron said:


> It's a compliment and its also a revelation for me (and hopefully others as well), in how to treat these back-and-forths. It really comes out to kind of the same policy with a new twist (attack the post, not the poster) and rather to bitch about R-Star and others, just remove the offending post and appeal to your good nature. Bottom line is you are a valued poster that has a lot to add (as do all of our posters) without going into attack mode.


There's always a fine line. My act, as well as others gets old from time to time. But if we didn't have the regulars there's not much left.

I'm perfectly fine with you guys throwing infractions my way when I deserve them. I usually have a good idea of when I've pushed too much and Tornado or Diss is going to send me an infraction.


At the end of the day, it is what it is.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Ron said:


> Yeah, you are new here.
> 
> But thanks, somehow you got R-Star to go back onto topic, man that takes real talent. I've been trying that for more than 10 years now with mixed results.





R-Star said:


> He just knows how to handle my ego.
> 
> You guys have mismanaged me for years.




I should be R Star's personal mod.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bad news Jamel. Its not in here.

Think its in another thread maybe?


----------

