Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

bastillon · Post #461 » by **bastillon** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:44 pm

ElGee, Suns without Nash weren't .500. they were 2-5 in 05, 0-3 in 06 and 2-4 in 07, which gives you 4-12 or .250. also, Lakers didn't really regress in the late 80s. other than that, I agree with your logic.

Post #462 » by **rrravenred** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:45 pm

G35 wrote:But it tells me that management was either trying to make Nash happy by getting a three point shooting big man and playing him 30+ minutes in Channing Frye. So yeah Nash can get the ball out to someone like that but he can't do that with a Dalembert who is not even on the Suns radar.

Sarver is cheap. Not quite Don Sterling cheap, but cheap.

Dally was worth $13 million last year. Frye? $5 Mill. Chandler? $12 Mil.

Good defensive big men aren't actually cheap.

sheba021 · Post #463 » by **sheba021** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:06 pm

GodDamnRobin wrote:You want to give Isiah credit for players who had good attitudes when they played with him, but you won't give him any negative points for his failure to motivate guys (like say Dantley).

What exactly did he fail to motivate him at? He was brought to post up and draw fouls, which is what he did. He would also, just like any other Piston, clubber whoever was driving inside.

Aeternus · Post #464 » by **Aeternus** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:22 pm

Brenice wrote:
GodDamnRobin wrote:The narrative that the Pistons were "forged in Zeke's image" and the Suns weren't is just that, a narrative. It's totally false.

Ok, you said it. The Suns are not a high-octane offense built in the image of Steve Nash.

I'm extrapolating of course, but I think what he said was rather, the Piston were not forged on Isiah's image because they weren't high scoring teams with mediocre efficiency and average to sub-par defense and rebounding, whereas Nash's Suns were exactly his image in that they were high scoring high efficiency offensive teams with average to sub-par defense and rebounding.

What does this tell us? That a supporting cast is there to complement and support your star's game, not uselessly exaggerating their best qualities forgetting their faults.
Once again the message is, don't fault Nash for his sc's faults, don't overrate Isiah for his sc's merit.

bastillon · Post #465 » by **bastillon** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:36 pm

rrravenred wrote:
G35 wrote:But it tells me that management was either trying to make Nash happy by getting a three point shooting big man and playing him 30+ minutes in Channing Frye. So yeah Nash can get the ball out to someone like that but he can't do that with a Dalembert who is not even on the Suns radar.

Sarver is cheap. Not quite Don Sterling cheap, but cheap.

Dally was worth $13 million last year. Frye? $5 Mill. Chandler? $12 Mil.

Good defensive big men aren't actually cheap.

my question is why would Nash be happy with the worst starting PF in the NBA ??

Krodis · Post #466 » by **Krodis** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:35 am

Channing Frye is a useful stretch big and entirely worth $5 million a year.

Having Channing Frye (or Amare Stoudemire) shouldn't preclude the Suns from getting a defensive big men, and Steve Nash not openly complaining about his teammates shouldn't make the Suns management think they don't have to improve them.

ahonui06 · Post #467 » by **ahonui06** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:36 am

Sarver is a tightass, but Nash had a chance to stay with an owner willing to spend and he opted to bolt back to Phoenix.

GodDamnRobin · Post #468 » by **GodDamnRobin** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:57 am

A big spending owner who wasn't willing to spend big to keep Nash... :-?

Post #469 » by **Doctor MJ** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:23 am

GodDamnRobin wrote:A big spending owner who wasn't willing to spend big to keep Nash...

About the 10th time in this thread I could give a +1 to the new guy.

Post #470 » by **rsavaj** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:18 am

ahonui06 wrote:Sarver is a tightass, but Nash had a chance to stay with an owner willing to spend and he opted to bolt back to Phoenix.

That really doesn't make sense, given what actually happened.

G35 · Post #471 » by **G35** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:19 pm

Krodis wrote:Are we really going to blame Nash for Phoenix's failure to surround him with good defensive players? It's not like Steve Nash can't play in the half-court, he's terrific at it.

The Suns are cheap and good defensive big men are expensive.

Are we really going to give Nash credit for leading great offenses when Phoenix management did nothing but bring in offensive players?

Yes pick a page. Any page. Some people are.....

bastillon · Post #472 » by **bastillon** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:39 pm

G35 wrote:
Krodis wrote:Are we really going to blame Nash for Phoenix's failure to surround him with good defensive players? It's not like Steve Nash can't play in the half-court, he's terrific at it.

The Suns are cheap and good defensive big men are expensive.

Are we really going to give Nash credit for leading great offenses when Phoenix management did nothing but bring in offensive players?

Yes pick a page. Any page. Some people are.....

so by that rationale, we shouldn't give credit to Magic because he was playing with Worthy, Kareem and McAdoo all of whom are very good offensive players ?

the argument for Nash isn't the fact that he played on great offensive team, it's the fact that he was mostly responsible for that great offense because Suns weren't even average offense without Nash on the floor. yeah, I'm giving credit to Nash for Suns improvement with him on the floor vs without him. who else would I give it to ?

Brenice · Post #473 » by **Brenice** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:41 pm

Krodis wrote:Channing Frye is a useful stretch big and entirely worth $5 million a year.

Having Channing Frye (or Amare Stoudemire) shouldn't preclude the Suns from getting a defensive big men, and Steve Nash not openly complaining about his teammates shouldn't make the Suns management think they don't have to improve them.

What did Nash want? What did Nash feel they needed? Frye should not have been the #1 priority. That should have been a defensive big. A Kurt Thomas on a short deal is always available.

Brenice · Post #474 » by **Brenice** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:50 pm

Kerr to Nash: "What do you want or Need Steve to get to the Finals?"
Nash to Kerr: "I need offense. Get me a power forward who shoots 3's."
Kerr to Nash: "Steve, the team needs a defensive presence and a rebounder."
Click!
Kerr: "Steve? Hello. You still there? Steve?"
Dialtone

Doormatt · Post #475 » by **Doormatt** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:23 pm

Kerr should be fired for listening to what his players want and Nash should be fined for hanging up on him!!!1!1!

Btw, does Kobe wanting management to trade Bynum for Kidd make him "worse" as well?

/facepalm

leroydaman · Post #476 » by **leroydaman** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:37 pm

I've never liked Thomas but he was a better player than Nash. Nash has become so overrated it's ridiculous.

Post #477 » by **rsavaj** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:17 pm

Brenice wrote:
Krodis wrote:Channing Frye is a useful stretch big and entirely worth $5 million a year.

Having Channing Frye (or Amare Stoudemire) shouldn't preclude the Suns from getting a defensive big men, and Steve Nash not openly complaining about his teammates shouldn't make the Suns management think they don't have to improve them.

What did Nash want? What did Nash feel they needed? Frye should not have been the #1 priority. That should have been a defensive big. A Kurt Thomas on a short deal is always available.

They traded Q and Nate Robinson for Kurt Thomas because they recognized that they needed a defensive big.

Then Sarver decided he needed a new house and decided to trade Kurt Thomas and two unprotected 1st round picks to Seattle for nothing.

I blame Steve Nash for this.

Post #478 » by **rsavaj** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:18 pm

Brenice wrote:Kerr to Nash: "What do you want or Need Steve to get to the Finals?"
Nash to Kerr: "I need offense. Get me a power forward who shoots 3's."
Kerr to Nash: "Steve, the team needs a defensive presence and a rebounder."
Click!
Kerr: "Steve? Hello. You still there? Steve?"
Dialtone

This is exactly what happened. Steve Nash hung up on Steve Kerr and cost the franchise a chance at a title.

Ballings7 · Post #479 » by **Ballings7** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:38 pm

Brenice wrote:Kerr to Nash: "What do you want or Need Steve to get to the Finals?"
Nash to Kerr: "I need offense. Get me a power forward who shoots 3's."
Kerr to Nash: "Steve, the team needs a defensive presence and a rebounder."
Click!
Kerr: "Steve? Hello. You still there? Steve?"
Dialtone

LOL

GodDamnRobin · Post #480 » by **GodDamnRobin** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:55 pm

Do you have any, like, evidence that Nash asked (or didn't ask) for any of those things? Seriously, you're just making stuff up now, and fitting it into your narrative. Nash did not want them to move Amare, he didn't want them to trade so many draft picks for nothing, he didn't want them to let JJ go, he didn't even want them to let Marion go (and a dozen other awful moves). The Suns front office just sucked, and were not following Nash's lead at all (just as the successful Pistons front office were not following Isiah's lead in the 80's, that's again a made up narrative).

What did Nash need to win? Very little given he almost won in 2007. All he needed was a little bit of the circumstantial good fortune Isiah had, whether that's having a much deeper and more talented team than your opponents (and Nash) had, or having the good fortune to win titles during a lull in the NBA. Isiah would have zero titles if you transported the 1989 team into the NBA in say 83 or 91. Isiah just benefited from circumstances. This isn't a particularly complex point to understand, it's been made about 20 times on this thread, I don't really understand what part of it you're not getting.