Yea, because adding a Shaq is equivilent to an aging Nash...The more appropriate anology would be Phoenix trading for Shaq thinking it would put them over the top when they already had the perfect player for that system. It literally destroyed Phoenix. Adding Nash does not make you any better than you are right now. As I said Brooks had an outstanding series with the Lakers and we still lost. Nash isnt going to put up better numbers in that series. He may increase our short term chances ever so slightly, but after one year they signifigantly decrease. Its a dumb trade, with people clamoring for star power. If you don't have a core in place of winners, cap relief means nothing. Sixers, Clippers and GS all had cap relief this past off season and it got them nothing but long bad contracts with players they are all desperate to get rid of now. Do you even watch basketball? Nash is hindered because he is not interested in defense. He is a lazy rotator and doesnt put forth the effort. Brooks is hindered by his size by does a damn decent job at staying in front of his man and rotating to the open spots. Brooks > Nash on defense. Name me one game this year in which Brooks was abused by an opposing point guard. Again you cant compare numbers of a run and gun system vs a slow system. At this point in thier careers there is no indication that Nash is better, and even if he is, it is highly possibly that Brooks will surpass Nash in 1-2 years anyway. Except it isn't. My obssession with assets is hanging onto valuable players so we don't have another 6 year stretch of rebuilding ala the steve francis era. God knows how long it would of been if we didnt luck out and land the number one pick. I am with this team for the long haul, and going all in on a 35 year old pg is just plain stupid. You just don't put all your eggs into one basket with hope everything works out. Thats great and all for that one year, but sucks for years down the line. Think about the Kidd trade, it is virtually identical and turned out horrible for the Mavs, especially if Kidd walks this summer.
I understand why you think that would be an appropriate analogy. Simply put, it helps your argument. However, a major flaw in your analogy is that when Shaq went to Phoenix, he wasn't nearly as effective as he was when he went to Miami. Right now, Nash is still a very effective player which is why the Laker/Heat trade with Shaq is more appropriate of a comparison. Absolutely wrong. Nash is better than Brooks in every aspect of the game except speed. Thats not necessarily true. The majority of Brooks' points came of jumpers, and Nash is a better shooter than Brooks. He's also a better free throw shooter than Brooks who almost cost us some playoff games with his late-game misses at the line. Ever so slightly? Nash is a huge upgrade over Brooks. What are you basing this on? The fact that for the past several years, Nash has been consistently effective? If you're going to speculate, at least try to support your contentions. Yeah...b/c so many teams win championships without stars... Cap relief allows you to get the stars to build your team around. If New York is able to sign Lebron and Bosh, you don't think they'll be contenders? Didn't the Lakers sign Shaq back in the late 90's and were rewarded with a string of championships? So you don't think injuries played a role? You think that if Brand were healthy and averaged 20/10, Philly would consider his to be a bad contract and be desperate to get rid of him? And since when are the Sixers, Clippers, and GS the business models we want to follow? Do you think it helps your argument to reference some of the most poorly managed teams in the NBA? You're forgetting that the Rockets' team defense covers a lot of Brooks' defensive mistakes. The last Suns/Rockets game, Nash had 25 pts and 17 assists on the Rockets. The last 2 Jazz/Rockets games, Williams had 19pt/12ast and 26pt/14ast. Remember the Bulls game where they came back from almost a 20 pt deficit in the 4th quarter? Rose abused Brooks. The last time I saw homerism to this degree was when Laker fans were comparing Bynum to Olajuwon individually and the duo of Bynum/Gasol to Duncan/Robinson. All the eggs in one basket? Do you realize that Nash's current contract expires at the end of the 09/10 season? If Kidd walks this summer, the Mavs will have about $20mm to play with. Yeah....it sure turned out horribly for them. And if he stays, it'll be at a lesser salary.
You have to be a real homer if you think Brooks at this stage is better than Nash. It's not even close. Brooks is a great shooter... but Nash is even better... a lot better. Imagine all the open jumpers Nash will get playing with Yao, etc. Running the team... no question, Nash hands down. Brooks only advantage is speed. The best case scenario for Brooks is to be a Ben Gordon.Nate Robinson type spark off the bench. That's all we can ask for... he's not a starter on a winning team. Brooks will be better than Nash in two years simply for the fact that Nash will be 38 years old then. But, Brooks will never be as good as the 35-year-old Nash... and I don't think anyone, besides homers, expect him to. Brooks had a nice playoff run, but we are trying to win now. If you can somehow get Nash for a package with Brooks as the main bait, you do it no questions asked.
Anybody who wants nash is missing the big picture here....We were exposed in the playoffs b/c of 2 reasons: 1) No size 2) No primary scorer in late game situations everywhere else, rockets are set at
Nash answers #2. Also, #3 is no one who could take care of the rock or get us involved in our offense. Nash solves that as well.
That's the thing, people are turning this into a Nash vs. Brooks debate when we don't know what it'll take to acquire him or who else will be available. Of course Nash is better than Brooks, but Brooks can't be traded for Nash straight up. We'd at least have to make contracts match. Tmac's expiring contract is the main asset we have. Are you sure you want to use it on the 35 year old Nash and give him a contract extension? At some point people just get too old to build around. The lakers tried to get KG forever. Could you imagine them trying to get him now? We could and should go after younger help instead.
Trading for Nash means the Rockets are paying him when he's 39 years old, because he'll get an extension. That's nuts.
.....LOL. Brooks wants to score more than Nash does, but you are only kidding yourself if you think he's actual a better scorer. Nash can score 30 on any given night if he truly wanted to. He's really just too unselfish to do that. Nash is efficient and his scoring and in his shooting, Brooks is the opposite of that.
Any time you have a chance to grab someone that is consider an automatic shooter like Dirk and Kobe...YOU GOT TO DO SOMETHING TO GET HIM. I don't care if he's a little too old. It's enough time for him to help us get a Championship.
Solves the back-up center situation and Nash can get the ball to Yao maybe?????[/quote] I just tried that in the ESPN trade machine, and it failed. We're taking too much salary back. We would need to give away about 11 more million dollars in salary for next season to make that trade work. Maybe a 3 team trade...
Getting S.Nash is a mistake even though the guy is almost a lock for the HOF, but his age is a deficit. AB has the potential which most teams crave, I believe he has more value than TMac. If AB like he says work on his passing skills, Rockets will be set for years to come. I would not trade potential and lesser salary for an aging star.
I wouldn't hold my breath on Brooks improving his passing skills by any considerable amount. Perhaps reducing turnovers, but that's not entirely the same. It's just that, once players hit the NBA, their playing style is pretty much set, especially when they actually went to college for a while like Brooks. One might even say that this is especially true with point guards. How often do you see a "score first" point guard convert to a "pass first" point guard? How often do you even see a low assist, low A/T ratio PG convert to a high assist, high A/T PG? "Never" comes to mind. It's all based on a mindset and skill set that are extremely difficult to develop after years and years of playing a certain way. Could happen for Brooks, but I sure wouldn't put my money on it.
