Of you who are persuaded to affirm "Trae Young has a Steve Nash kind-of career ahead of him"... what's persuaded you?

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

That, as opposed to a Mike Bibby kind-of career ahead of him, which I feel safe to say that's probably his floor.

Some know that I'm a fence-sitter on this question... if it were a religious question, you could consider me agnostic.

What's got you so sure, and what do you think people like me might be overlooking or underappreciating....???

Honest question. And so much so that you can post, rest-assured, this isn't looking for an argument. If I post again in this thread, it will only be to ask for clarification on something someone has said. I'd like to be persuaded.

If you personally are NOT practically 100% sold on a Nash-kind-of-career for Trae, then please oblige and be like me and step aside for the ones who are 100% persuaded. I want to hear them out.

I suppose, too, if you're persuaded to the Steve Nash type of career over a Mike Bibby, but you're one of those who just are that optimistic, and you don't actually have much more than "just a feeling"... you too are better to sit this one out, if you don't mind.

I'm looking for some people who can offer some actual meat to chew on.

[REHawksFan]

Sigh....I feel like Charlie Brown running to kick the football while Sturt is holding it, but oh well. Here goes nothing.

1st, let me apologize for not being able to cite every reference as I'm on my phone and don't have the patience to look them all up. You can probably find them all in the Trae thread.

For me, the faith and conviction of Trae's elite potential stems from him achieving things that only elite rookies have achieved before. He had SEVEN games of 30+ pts and 10+ asts which is more than LBJ, Nash, Steph, Iverson, and every other rookie not named Oscar.

He's also on several other short lists of elite players.

Next, he's an Alpha. He demands the ball and comes through in the cluth just as other elite players do. He hit multiple game winners as a rookie. That's not typical.

Also, he makes other players better. JC, Dedmon, TP, Len all had career years because Trae facilitated them getting the ball in advantageous positions. Elite players make those around them better.

The bottom line for me is Trae did as much as he possibly could in his rookie year to show his elite potential. No he's not elite yet. No one says he is. But other than not struggling the first 4-6 weeks of his career, I honestly dont know what else he could have done. And even with the struggle, he still finished with elite rookie numbers overall.

My point is there's only so much a rookie can do to prove he has elite potential and I honestly think trae did as much as he possibly could have. Does that guarantee anything? Of course not. But to the extent that he could establish an elite projection, he's done so imo.

[King Ken]

I don't know or think he will be either Nash or Bibby. He will be Trae. A high usage PnR superstar with elite range and passing skills. Not to mention Tony Parker like finishing potential and quickness off of the dribble.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

I don't know or think he will be either Nash or Bibby. He will be Trae. A high usage PnR superstar with elite range and passing skills. Not to mention Tony Parker like finishing potential and quickness off of the dribble.

I suppose I could stand to be more clear/objective. I've been using and will continue to use until someone comes up with some better objective criterion the achievement of multiple top 5 MVP finishes... (Nash did that, Bibby didn't...) which fits well with the elite cornerstone label and that exclusive club of players who have been a lead dog in a championship.

So, if you think he has that kind of career ahead of him, I'm interested to know what distinguishes him as a Nash kind-of achiever versus a Bibby kind-of achiever. One could make a decent argument that Bibby had elite range and passing skills, and exceptional finishing and quickness. So, I'm just looking for what puts Trae in the trajectory of a higher destination.

[REHawksFan]

I don't know or think he will be either Nash or Bibby. He will be Trae. A high usage PnR superstar with elite range and passing skills. Not to mention Tony Parker like finishing potential and quickness off of the dribble.

I suppose I could stand to be more clear/objective. I've been using and will continue to use until someone comes up with some better objective criterion the achievement of multiple top 5 MVP finishes... (Nash did that, Bibby didn't...) which fits well with the elite cornerstone label and that exclusive club of players who have been a lead dog in a championship.

So, if you think he has that kind of career ahead of him, I'm interested to know what distinguishes him as a Nash kind-of achiever versus a Bibby kind-of achiever. One could make a decent argument that Bibby had elite range and passing skills, and exceptional finishing and quickness. So, I'm just looking for what puts Trae in the trajectory of a higher destination.

I would submit for consideration that the NBA already has an elite criteria in the form of the supermax criteria.

MVP in last 2 years; or
Defensive POY; or
All NBA

On Trae's current projection I could see multiple All NBA and an MVP in his future.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

I don't know or think he will be either Nash or Bibby. He will be Trae. A high usage PnR superstar with elite range and passing skills. Not to mention Tony Parker like finishing potential and quickness off of the dribble.

I suppose I could stand to be more clear/objective. I've been using and will continue to use until someone comes up with some better objective criterion the achievement of multiple top 5 MVP finishes... (Nash did that, Bibby didn't...) which fits well with the elite cornerstone label and that exclusive club of players who have been a lead dog in a championship.

So, if you think he has that kind of career ahead of him, I'm interested to know what distinguishes him as a Nash kind-of achiever versus a Bibby kind-of achiever. One could make a decent argument that Bibby had elite range and passing skills, and exceptional finishing and quickness. So, I'm just looking for what puts Trae in the trajectory of a higher destination.

I would submit for consideration that the NBA already has an elite criteria in the form of the supermax criteria.

MVP in last 2 years; or
Defensive POY; or
All NBA

On Trae's current projection I could see multiple All NBA and an MVP in his future.

It's a bit of a tangent, and maybe it deserves its own thread, but I'll say this much more and leave it there for now...

Take that set of criteria, RE, and see if you end up with something in the neighborhood of 20-ish players or fewer who have been the lead dogs on a championship team in the last 20 years (ie, since the CBA that first established the modern NBA salary cap rules). If you do, then you essentially have accomplished the same thing as the multiple top 5 MVP finish criteria.

If you end up with more than 20-ish, then yes, there's a fit, but it's much more broad... it's like yes, I can wear XXL and be clothed, but it's not a good fit.

The fewer players that qualify, and the more that that group of qualifiers consists mainly of guys who have been lead dogs on championship teams, the more of a good fit you have with what Schlenk would be talking about when he speaks about having at least one cornerstone elite player on the roster as being requisite to winning a title.

[EazyRoc]

Sigh....I feel like Charlie Brown running to kick the football while Sturt is holding it, but oh well. Here goes nothing.

1st, let me apologize for not being able to cite every reference as I'm on my phone and don't have the patience to look them all up. You can probably find them all in the Trae thread.

For me, the faith and conviction of Trae's elite potential stems from him achieving things that only elite rookies have achieved before. He had SEVEN games of 30+ pts and 10+ asts which is more than LBJ, Nash, Steph, Iverson, and every other rookie not named Oscar.

He's also on several other short lists of elite players.

Next, he's an Alpha. He demands the ball and comes through in the cluth just as other elite players do. He hit multiple game winners as a rookie. That's not typical.

Also, he makes other players better. JC, Dedmon, TP, Len all had career years because Trae facilitated them getting the ball in advantageous positions. Elite players make those around them better.

The bottom line for me is Trae did as much as he possibly could in his rookie year to show his elite potential. No he's not elite yet. No one says he is. But other than not struggling the first 4-6 weeks of his career, I honestly dont know what else he could have done. And even with the struggle, he still finished with elite rookie numbers overall.

My point is there's only so much a rookie can do to prove he has elite potential and I honestly think trae did as much as he possibly could have. Does that guarantee anything? Of course not. But to the extent that he could establish an elite projection, he's done so imo.

This made me legit laugh out loud. Good stuff.

[EazyRoc]

To answer your question sturt, I saw it in pre draft when I really started narrowing in on guys I saw. He just had a feel for the game that I’ve never seen out of a guy that young. I saw him do well against nba caliber defenders and saw a guy who I thought could be an MVP.

Yes, I predicted Trae Young would be an NBA MVP caliber player in 2018 before we drafted him. I can prove it now that the Squawk is back.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

By way of explanation...

Define "feel for the game" so that it's something more tangible please. When you say that, what all goes into those words.

I ask because most people I read this time last year were talking in terms of two Traes at OK, basically a difference between the first-half Trae, and the second-half. Many were inclined to believe that defenses caught up to him, and he wasn't the same player capable of leading his team to wins, only capable of amassing stats for himself.

And who did you consider to be "NBA caliber defenders" who he did well against in college?

[EazyRoc]

By way of explanation...

Define "feel for the game" so that it's something more tangible please. When you say that, what all goes into those words.

I ask because most people I read this time last year were talking in terms of two Traes at OK, basically a difference between the first-half Trae, and the second-half. Many were inclined to believe that defenses caught up to him, and he wasn't the same player capable of leading his team to wins, only capable of amassing stats for himself.

And who did you consider to be "NBA caliber defenders" who he did well against in college?

Understanding where people are going to be ahead of time, how to create passing angles and lanes, how to use your body to draw contact

And Collin Sexton and another guy who was touted as a top perimeter defender in college from that year not sure if he actually made the NBA.

[Buzzard]

I don't know or think he will be either Nash or Bibby. He will be Trae. A high usage PnR superstar with elite range and passing skills. Not to mention Tony Parker like finishing potential and quickness off of the dribble.

I suppose I could stand to be more clear/objective. I've been using and will continue to use until someone comes up with some better objective criterion the achievement of multiple top 5 MVP finishes... (Nash did that, Bibby didn't...) which fits well with the elite cornerstone label and that exclusive club of players who have been a lead dog in a championship.

So, if you think he has that kind of career ahead of him, I'm interested to know what distinguishes him as a Nash kind-of achiever versus a Bibby kind-of achiever. One could make a decent argument that Bibby had elite range and passing skills, and exceptional finishing and quickness. So, I'm just looking for what puts Trae in the trajectory of a higher destination.

Our definitions of elite do not match up well. I consider any player in the top 10% potentially someone who could be labeled elite. And any player top 10 period out of 150 plus starters in the league is elite; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Furthermore going from Bibby to Nash and skipping everyone in between is quite a large gap. You are leaving off plenty of HOF point guards by making Nash your starting point for elite. One last point concerning your elite lead dog opinion, Nash never lead a team to a championship.

I most certainly think Trae has the potential to be elite. But that is by my definition. As far as yours goes, I will sit on the fence with you and just watch.

[REHawksFan]

I don't know or think he will be either Nash or Bibby. He will be Trae. A high usage PnR superstar with elite range and passing skills. Not to mention Tony Parker like finishing potential and quickness off of the dribble.

I suppose I could stand to be more clear/objective. I've been using and will continue to use until someone comes up with some better objective criterion the achievement of multiple top 5 MVP finishes... (Nash did that, Bibby didn't...) which fits well with the elite cornerstone label and that exclusive club of players who have been a lead dog in a championship.

So, if you think he has that kind of career ahead of him, I'm interested to know what distinguishes him as a Nash kind-of achiever versus a Bibby kind-of achiever. One could make a decent argument that Bibby had elite range and passing skills, and exceptional finishing and quickness. So, I'm just looking for what puts Trae in the trajectory of a higher destination.

Our definitions of elite do not match up well. I consider any player in the top 10% potentially someone who could be labeled elite. And any player top 10 period out of 150 plus starters in the league is elite; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Furthermore going from Bibby to Nash and skipping everyone in between is quite a large gap. You are leaving off plenty of HOF point guards by making Nash your starting point for elite. One last point concerning your elite lead dog opinion, Nash never lead a team to a championship.

I most certainly think Trae has the potential to be elite. But that is by my definition. As far as yours goes, I will sit the fence with you and just watch.

It's a fair point for sure. If none of us agree on what being elite means we'll never come to a consensus on whether Trae is elite or has the potential to be elite.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

Our definitions of elite do not match up well. I consider any player in the top 10% potentially someone who could be labeled elite. And any player top 10 period out of 150 plus starters in the league is elite; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Furthermore going from Bibby to Nash and skipping everyone in between is quite a large gap. You are leaving off plenty of HOF point guards by making Nash your starting point for elite. One last point concerning your elite lead dog opinion, Nash never lead a team to a championship.

I most certainly think Trae has the potential to be elite. But that is by my definition. As far as yours goes, I will sit on the fence with you and just watch.

Buzz, all due respect, you're ignoring or misunderstanding the point of the exercise of establishing a standard for elite.

It's not a matter of what definition fits the term more universally among you, me, or any of us. You're entitled to call whoever you want "elite."

Rather, the point is to take Schlenk's rationale for saying we need a cornerstone elite player because every championship team has had one, and then the figure out what proxy might be an equivalent that we can try to compare Trae against... still a matter of projection, but it's one thing to say, "Do you think Trae can be the lead dog in taking this franchise to a championship, and a bit more pragmatic to put it in some other terms that establishes a group of former players Trae would be likely joining if that were to come about.

And yes, I've already said the fit of the multiple-top-5-MVP vote finishes contains a few more players than those who were the actual lead dogs for a championship team, and I keep on encouraging you and anyone else interested to figure out a better standard that yields a closer fit... but it's no terrible red flag that a two-time MVP shows up in that group.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

I suppose I could stand to be more clear/objective. I've been using and will continue to use until someone comes up with some better objective criterion the achievement of multiple top 5 MVP finishes... (Nash did that, Bibby didn't...) which fits well with the elite cornerstone label and that exclusive club of players who have been a lead dog in a championship.

So, if you think he has that kind of career ahead of him, I'm interested to know what distinguishes him as a Nash kind-of achiever versus a Bibby kind-of achiever. One could make a decent argument that Bibby had elite range and passing skills, and exceptional finishing and quickness. So, I'm just looking for what puts Trae in the trajectory of a higher destination.

Our definitions of elite do not match up well. I consider any player in the top 10% potentially someone who could be labeled elite. And any player top 10 period out of 150 plus starters in the league is elite; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Furthermore going from Bibby to Nash and skipping everyone in between is quite a large gap. You are leaving off plenty of HOF point guards by making Nash your starting point for elite. One last point concerning your elite lead dog opinion, Nash never lead a team to a championship.

I most certainly think Trae has the potential to be elite. But that is by my definition. As far as yours goes, I will sit the fence with you and just watch.

It's a fair point for sure. If none of us agree on what being elite means we'll never come to a consensus on whether Trae is elite or has the potential to be elite.

And not a new point. It's the point I've been attempting to get through for awhile now. And not on some willy-nilly basis, but one that is directly posited on the whole reason Schlenk initiated that discussion......

Let's try this again, shall we? *sigh*

It's a bit of a tangent, and maybe it deserves its own thread, but I'll say this much more and leave it there for now...

Take that set of criteria, RE, and see if you end up with something in the neighborhood of 20-ish players or fewer who have been the lead dogs on a championship team in the last 20 years (ie, since the CBA that first established the modern NBA salary cap rules). If you do, then you essentially have accomplished the same thing as the multiple top 5 MVP finish criteria.

If you end up with more than 20-ish, then yes, there's a fit, but it's much more broad... it's like yes, I can wear XXL and be clothed, but it's not a good fit.

The fewer players that qualify, and the more that that group of qualifiers consists mainly of guys who have been lead dogs on championship teams, the more of a good fit you have with what Schlenk would be talking about when he speaks about having at least one cornerstone elite player on the roster as being requisite to winning a title.

[_s_t_u_r_t_]

So, wait... after almost a full day, and no one else affirms that assertion? C'mon give us fence sitters something more. Really, no offense, but I think I could make as good or better an argument than what's here.

[Spud2nique]

I’m not contributing to Chris Guest’s next article thank you..Chris lol.

[Buzzard]

Our definitions of elite do not match up well. I consider any player in the top 10% potentially someone who could be labeled elite. And any player top 10 period out of 150 plus starters in the league is elite; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Furthermore going from Bibby to Nash and skipping everyone in between is quite a large gap. You are leaving off plenty of HOF point guards by making Nash your starting point for elite. One last point concerning your elite lead dog opinion, Nash never lead a team to a championship.

I most certainly think Trae has the potential to be elite. But that is by my definition. As far as yours goes, I will sit on the fence with you and just watch.

Buzz, all due respect, you're ignoring or misunderstanding the point of the exercise of establishing a standard for elite.

It's not a matter of what definition fits the term more universally among you, me, or any of us. You're entitled to call whoever you want "elite."

Rather, the point is to take Schlenk's rationale for saying we need a cornerstone elite player because every championship team has had one, and then the figure out what proxy might be an equivalent that we can try to compare Trae against... still a matter of projection, but it's one thing to say, "Do you think Trae can be the lead dog in taking this franchise to a championship, and a bit more pragmatic to put it in some other terms that establishes a group of former players Trae would be likely joining if that were to come about.

And yes, I've already said the fit of the multiple-top-5-MVP vote finishes contains a few more players than those who were the actual lead dogs for a championship team, and I keep on encouraging you and anyone else interested to figure out a better standard that yields a closer fit... but it's no terrible red flag that a two-time MVP shows up in that group.

I would hazard a guess he hopes so, Trae's 1st year was very promising, but Schlenk does not know yet. Using Nash as your example, he never made a all-star game until his 6th year in the league, 2001/02. I think by Trae's 3rd or 4th season he will know for certain one way or the other.

[Duff Man]

If Trae won an MVP in his career, it would not surprise me. He has that kind of talent.

[MaceCase]

I'm not comfortable with the criteria of "top 5 MVP finishes" because MVP is too heavily driven by media narratives and I just don't accept the "well come up with a better one then" response. Basketball or sports in general are just too nuanced to force only an objective measure that could withstand thesis level scrutiny into a message board discussion.

With that in mind, I'll say for myself I wasn't enamored with Trae during the pre-draft period, he wasn't in my top 5 of potential draftees, in fact he was #2 in my "DO NOT DRAFT!" list. The draft came and I was thoroughly disappointed, but decided I'd give him a fair chance to prove me wrong over a 3 year deadline. Trae ended up coloring me impressed within only one season.

I suppose in terms of meat to chew on, if I was to accept the "top 5 MVP finishes" criteria then I'd have to divide that small list to a much smaller one because Trae notched a few milestones that only a minuscule number of players that probably qualified for the list achieved. Beyond that, Trae surpassed Bibby's career best passing (AST%) and scoring (points per36) seasons in his rookie year alone giving optimism that he's at minimum in a tier or 2 above Bibby. There's ways to go in terms of matching the efficiency and passing of prime Nash but I suppose the consolation is that it took Nash till the age of 30 to put up an AST% higher than Trae's rookie season and he never had a season matching Trae's scoring rate.

[MaceCase]

I would submit for consideration that the NBA already has an elite criteria in the form of the supermax criteria.

MVP in last 2 years; or
Defensive POY; or
All NBA

On Trae's current projection I could see multiple All NBA and an MVP in his future.

There's an irony in that the player whom that rule was named after never qualified for a top 5 finish before or after he won a MVP.