[Stein]Rockets one of VERY interested teams to steal Steve Nash

15th in team FG%.

 

You guys baffle me. How would bringing a 37 yr old star who plays absolutley no defense help a team who's already poor defensivley? The answer, it wouldnt. All this "In Morey we trust" **** dies the momment we get Steve Nash. Not sure how that would equate in stupid money ball system either, but getting Nash would be a HUGE step backwards for the organizaiton

 

I'd trade Brooks and our 2012 pick for Steve Nash. You know why? We still get to keep Kyle Lowry when Nash retires in 3-4 years.

Right now the Rockets are playing the kind of uptempo, open court style Nash thrives in. Since RA is so adamant at starting Chuck Hayes, why not get Nash and give our 6'6 center a playmaker he hasn't had since Tmac? Not only that, once Hill comes into the game we have our Amare replacement good to go:

Hill/Scola/Lee/Martin/Nash-> this lineup is extremely close to that PHX team that set the league on fire. Lee is the Raja Bell clone, Martin is a much better scorer than JJ, Scola is the shawn marion glue guy and Hill is a defensive version of Amare. Get it done, and free Steve Nash from PHX! Plus, on the off chance Yao Ming returns next year we have both of them at reduced prices.

 

Top 5? Lmao, please explain. Good trade? How? Nash needs a dominate athletic big man to throw alley's to, if RA plays Hill only 15 minutes a game I dont think thats gonna help us.

 

People think by trading for Steve Nash we are compromising our future... Steve Nash would instantly fast forward all of our rookies/young players development. I say do it.

 

This is dumb. Which players has he done this for on his current team?

 

What's Kevin Martin's FG%?

 

Nash
Martin
Lee
Scola
Hill

Are you kidding? Is this lineup really THAT much better than a Brooks lineup? You guys are so caught up on it being Nash that you've lost all sense of reality. Aint no way we trade a potential up and coming star for 37 yr old defensive liability. Not only that, you give up a 1ST ROUNDER That first rounder we give up could potentially be a franchise player, and you've given that up for a 37 yr old player with 2 or 3 good years left? TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE!!!!! If the Rockets do this, Bob Mcnair will no longer have the worst franchise in Houston.

 

lulz. And Brooks is even worse defensively.
Would easily trade Brooks and the 2012 pick with some protection, naturally. Really, anyone who thinks Nash and Brooks are even remotely at the same level is either deluded or DD. It's possible to argue Nash is a top 5 PG, though it would be harder with Rose and Westbrook breaking out. Doing so with Brooks is laughable.

 

We are not going to contend even with Nash. I'll pass. It's time to rebuild instead of adding more veterans.

 

Nash and Scola all day every day

 

why would we want nash? if we make this move, i would scratch my head at what our goal is: stay relevant but mediocre or win?

 

I am not sure if Nash is the guy we want, since he clear does not fit what we are doing(go young and younger)

But one thing, i am pretty sure is that, if Nash came here, he will broke down in a year, book it(compared to the medical staff of Phx, our staff can only be described as ^&*)*%^~`1`1#%#^%)

 

The question to me is why would Nash want the Rockets? True, mo one is claiming he does. But if Nash were going somewhere, I think he would be explicit about his yes's and no's. And he certainly has a better opportunity for a ring somewhere besides Houston. So from his perspective, I would only go to a FINALS Contender period.

 

Every pick is a potential franchise player. Under your logic, we shouldn't trade a 2nd round pick for Gerald Wallace because that pick could be a potential franchise player.

Our pick next year has a very low probability of being a top 10 pick, what with alot of teams being far worse than either the KNicks or the Rox. Nash right now is even better than what we want Brooks to be. Losing Brooks would be bad if we didn't have Lowry chomping at the bit at pg. Since we do have Lowry, we should upgrade the pg position, esp. since the Nash effect will make everyone on the team better offensively.

 

You only trade draft picks and young talent for an aging star if you are going "all-in" and are trying to win a championship NOW. Nash does not make us a championship contender.

 

Steve Nash and Marcin Gortat for Aaron Brooks, Jared Jeffries, Patrick Patterson and 2012 first rd pick.

Nash/Lowry
Martin/T-Will
Lee/Battier/Chase
Scola/Hill
Gortat/Hayes/Miller

That would put us in serious contention with LA, Miami and Boston

 

Three questions:

1. How long do you expect Grandpa Nash to continue playing. (I believe Shaq at 38 is the current oldest player in the league).

2. Do you expect Nash to be on the team when they are championship contenders? (if not what is the point of trading for him?)

3. Does moving Nash into the starting line-up help or hurt our defense?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

Let's say theoretically we trade Brooks and expirings for Nash and Gortat.
In the near future, this clearly benefits us. In the farther future, this also isn't that bad...when Nash retires in a few years, Brooks would be almost 30, and we would still have Lowry and Smith.
This would definitely help with Jordan Hill's development among other things, and could be a move that nets us a star...in Jordan Hill. Furthermore, this is a basically a no-risk move since when Nash retires, we already have a PG of the future in Lowry.

 

Team offense is about scoring points.

Who cares if you have to get an offensive rebound first? The points count the same.