I wouldn't do a Nash trade, he's old and can't play any D. I'm interested in the following guards from order whether they are available or not: Calderon, TJ Ford, Devin Harris, Ramon Sessions, Kirk Henrich
those names i like them too (harris maybe not so much). but this thread was opened on an espn article on nash.
Comparing a guy who has been the star player on teams that had several deep playoff runs to a guy who has never gotten out of the first round doesn't make much sense. Nash does deserve some of the blame for the Suns not getting into the playoffs this year but that doesn't mean he is a bad player. McGrady wasn't a bad player either, but he could never get teams over the hump. Nash has many times. Several superstar players have had teams that failed to make the playoffs or get out of the first round. In 2005, Kobe Bryant's Lakers failed to make the playoffs. In 2006, Kobe's Lakers lost to Nash's Suns in the first round. In 2007, Kobe's Lakers lost to Nash's Suns in the first round. Does that mean Kobe is like McGrady? No, because Kobe has proven he can get his team over the hump when he has the right team. If McGrady takes a teams to the Conference Finals next year or the year after, everyone will stop talking trash about him. Nash has already done that.
Fixed. The best is the bolded. Would make that trade in a heartbeat, but I'm the Suns wouldn't give up both Nash and Amar'e.
IDK Ron Artest is actually borderline, not many perimeter players win DPOY and big awards like that can get you some votes. But that's another story, Tmac Yao and Artest are all around or at 30 years old. You know what, Pierce wouldn't be a HOFamer if it werent for that trade. Nothing is wrong with this team, only thing wrong with this team right now is that guys can't stay healthy. Like I said i'd think about Tmac for Nash but not Brooks for Nash...too many old players on the team and we're forgetting Battier and Scola aren't exactly young.
I expect my PG to be able to get others involved in the offense. Is that too much to ask? Russell Westbrook has uber upside. Aaron Brooks does not. I can understand if you are talking about getting rid of a young guard with uber upside, like Devin Harris. Aaron Brooks is not in the top half of the league at his position, and as recently as a week ago had a super long thread on here wondering if we should give his job to his backup. You guys are seriously overrating him.
Dude, no offense but you are crazy if you think Ron Artest is a borderline Hall of Famer. He isn't even close. And we aren't counting McGrady because if we traded for Nash, McGrady wouldn't be here. You said we are filling the roster with Hall of Famers which makes no sense because if we got Nash, we would have, at most, two potential Hall of Famers. Last time I checked, every team that has won an NBA Title in the last 20 years except the Pistons a few years ago has had 2 or more Hall of Famers. Pistons - Thomas, Rodman, Dumars Bulls - Jordan, Pippin Rockets - Hakeem, Drexler Bulls - Jordan, Pippin, Rodman Spurs - Robinson, Duncan Lakers - Shaq, Kobe Spurs - Duncan, Parker Heat - Shaq, Wade Boston - Pierce, Garnett, Allen
No, but the point is everyone's talking about stats and how that makes Nash automatically better. So why doesn't Brooks have uber upside? Because you say so? Westbrook is a scoring PG too y'know...
You should seriously look at the list of HOFamers, some of them are roleplayers but each of them have awards...Artest has that. All those players you mentioned all have awards but this is another topic. THE Bball HOF isn't a super-exclusive club. Manu will also be a HOFamer.
Not sure what Russell Westbrook has to do with this discussion but since he came up, he averaged more points, rebounds, assists, and less turnovers in his rookie year than Aaron Brooks did in his second year after becoming a starter. Again, I'm not trying to criticize Aaron Brooks just because I think we'd be better off trading for Nash. Brooks has talent, but this notion that he is some kind of sure fire can't miss prospect just because he scored a lot of points in one playoff series while averaging more turnovers than assists is kind of crazy. He's has talent as a scorer but he isn't a true PG and his natural inclination is to score, not to set up other people. The chances of Aaron Brooks ever developing into a point guard who averages 7+ assists per game isn't all that likely because he has never been that type of player. Not in college and not so far in the NBA.
Also not only that winning a championship gaurantees that one guy will get into the HOF. Winning a MVP is a surefire ticket and winning a Finals MVP is the closest thing to winning a MVP. So IF we won a championship...then yeah we'd get two HOFamers. Plus...Billups and Ben Wallace are going to be HOFamers. Ben Wallace has done something not many players have...win 4DPOY awards and Billups is a FInals MVP and who knows...he could get another this season. But this is another topic but the point is Brooks is fine as it is. dude was THE reason we pushed the Lakers to 7 and we're quick to replace him with a 35yr old PG who can only go down from here?
Why does Brooks have uber upside...because you say so?? Westbrook also plays defense. And the last time I checked, the Thunder aren't in a win now mode. So they can afford to wait around and hope Westbrook gets it. Do we really have that option. And once you say Artest is a HOF'er....that's when I have to stop debating with you because we clearly don't rate players the same way.
The only role players that get into the HOF are guys who were part of teams that won titles. Artest has never won any. Artest is no where close to being a Hall of Famer. If he was, every above average player in the NBA would get into the Hall of Fame. Again, no offense, but you're way off on that one. I'd let that go if I were you because you're not gonna find many people who will defend the idea of Artest being a Hall of Famer.
Only 135 players have been inducted in 49 years. That's less than 3 per year. A pretty super-exclusive club if you ask me, especially for a player who won't get any consideration based on his college career like a Ewing or a Dantley did. Not to mention there are plenty of players around Ron's age that are going to be way in front of him in line. His only hope would be to win at least one more DPOY award and/or a ring. Simply put, his resume is nowhere near HOF worthy as is.
You miss the entire point though. This team AS IT IS...is already good. AS IT IS. Brooks can ONLY get better, AS IT IS. On Paper this team AS IT IS without it's injuries are a contender. Brooks can only get better. Westbrook came into the discussion because all of you kept throwing Brooks stats and comparing them to Nash's stats this season. Nash being a NBA veteran and Brooks being a rookie basically, so I said..."Well I guess you'd trade Nash for Wbrook then?" because that's basically what you're saying when all you do is throw stats around. Of course Nash is going to have better stats then Brooks, he's a 2x MVP winner and a once Elite player...but he's 35 and that ain't changing. As it is this team is already good enough to compete with anyone, it's only problems have been injuries. Why blow it up so soon just when you think you've got something? You know what...Spurs a while back were close to trading another PG who only looked to score and was known for his speed...I wonder how that worked out. Building a team is ALL about patience too, boy the Lakers would be IN BIG TROUBLE had they traded Bynum for Kidd. Who disagrees with that? Dallas did the EXACT SAME THING you all want to do. It hasn't worked then the Lakers held their ground and Dallas didn't...look whose still playing for rings?
Brooks doesn't have uber upside...when did I say he did? AS IT IS this team is good enough to win now. We will make the same mistake Dallas did, Potential is something that can't be seen i'm not acting like it can, you all are. I've said many times I don't think Brooks will be a all-star player, but I HAVE NO IDEA and neither does anyone. Fact is...Brooks CAN get better...Nash Can't...in fact Nash can start falling off as soon as next season. The sure bet is to keep Brooks, especially since this team is already good right now. Dallas didn't know what Harris was, the Lakers weren't sure what Bynum would be and still aren't now. But when a guy almost leads your team past the #1 seed I think you hold onto that. I find it odd that the two guys who played a major part in getting this team outta the first round are the two guys everyone wants moved.
