sure but i don't think philly would do that. I think they would want more. Plus defensive teams can't have any holes. we have tons already. so to me, you can't plug in one great defensive player and expect much. you aren't going to slow down kobe if you can't lock down the rest of the Lakers team as Kobe will just burn you with passes. It only takes one flaw to break down a defense, we got martin and brooks as holes right now. c-bud isn't steller either. Nor is Scola. I say, go for the gold and make us a better offensive unit than anyone else.
Not once did you mention how disgraceful Nash's defense will be. The idea of Nash is fantastic, but from a pure basketball standspoint its really not that much of an upgrade of Aaron. You obviously undervalue Brooks
LMAO, a swap of Brooks and Nash wouldn't have any impact on the defense. They both can't D up. Nash is guy who can still contend for the MVP title. You're putting Brooks on that level.
See your point but Amare seemed to have a great preseason. He is a very very good player, as well as an athletic finisher around the rim, people forget that..
On the offensive end, Nash is better by miles. He has (and he will have) at least 12 points more in the Offensive Rating stat, and about 3 points more in the Defensive Rating stat. That's a net 9 points per 100 possessions. He has about 5.5 more Offensive wins, and .8 less defensive wins, a net 4.7 upgrade. He has exactly two times the wins/48 mins Brooks has. Now to shooting which is all-important with Yao. Nash is a .43 3p-shooter, while Brooks "only" shoots .4 from the field. Nash shoots .92 from the charity strip, while Brooks shoots .82. Now with this team, that difference could sum up to 1 ppg, because of Martin, Lowry, Yao and the other team being in the penalty. At endgame situations, the effect gets magnified, because small edges become more important. There is a world of difference between their TS%s, but Nash is an all-time great in adjusted scoring efficiency metrics. The only points where Brooks proves to be better are: - Brooks is less turnover prone according to the statistics. This stat should be analysed because I think there are some key differences between the TOs made by Nash and by Brooks. I would say Nash usually makes TOs in open court situations where a bit of gambling could result in an easy layup or a turnover. Brooks usually makes mistakes when he creates a bad situation for himself he cannot escape from (dribbling in traffic with few seconds on the clock). I guess about every third TO Nash commits is due to an educated gambling decision and not a fundamental mistake. But let's say Nash is more turnover prone. I guess the two players are nearly identical on the defensive end, while Nash is clearly superior on the offensive end. I mean: by miles.
He's still good enough to elevate the team, even if not for long. If you could get Nash in a deal with Lowry as the best player you give up - and still keep Brooks - you do that in a heartbeat. The goal is to win a championship.
From a pure basketball standpoint, trading a young, undersized point guard who plays bad defense and who's won exactly one playoff series in his career for a two-time MVP who's led multiple teams deep into the playoffs and is one of the most efficient shooters in the history of basketball (while still being a very poor defender) is only a minor upgrade? I don't know how well Nash would fit in on a Yao-centric team, but last year's team could have won 55 games if they had Nash instead of Brooks. Last year's Rockets team was more talented than the 2006 Suns team that Nash led to the WCF.
I'd rather trade Brooks. First, Nash and Brooks are similar in the sense that they are mainly offensive players. Now Nash does everything Brooks can (a bit better imho), so Lowry complements Nash's skillset more. When Nash is getting lit up on D, you can get Lowry in to cool off the opponent. Lowry can even become a starter on certain days, because Nash can easily run the second unit (against the j*zz e.g., D-Will usually destroys Nash (and Brooks too)). The second argument here I think is Brooks' price. He will ultimately get his 10M contract from us or from someone else. He won't resign if Nash stays because he won't accept coming from the bench, which is understandable. Now we will have a hard time creating cap space for Brooks, and by trading him for Nash, we will get short-term value and escape the difficult situation we will face next summer. If we won't be able to keep Brooks, we will be screwed. It would be truly Morey-ish to just squeeze the value we can from him, until it is possible. We will have one bad year contract-wise because of the move - a possible lockout year. I think this trade would make everyone happy. We would become a huge contender, Brooks could get his starting role + usage up, the Suns could get a young, talented PG. Good for everyone. The Nash - Lowry, Martin - Lee, frontcourt is just plain awesomeness. Imagine how many options Nash could have in an Adelman offense. It would be a joy to watch.
he talked about returning to texas before and mentioned any texas team. He would be fine coming to Houston. He loves Yao.
I wouldn't mind trading brooks for nash, seriously the guy brings the best out of his team mates, he's a veteran that knows what it takes to win, that said if brooks is included in a trade package for nash i would be opposed to giving up any draft picks, if another point guard is included in the deal im ok with giving up a pick.
RA's Kings had decent defenders at the PG. Bobby Jackson and Mike Bibby were capable defenders. Brooks and Nash are horrible defenders. If we had Brooks and Nash, we might exploit our opponent's on offense, but we're just as easily exploited on defense. Our current PG combo is doing great, but with Nash we're making a near riskless upgrade. Losing Lowry is risking, since we have no one to defend against the top PGs.
Very sad. Phoenix really sucked majorly in the preseason. They were not just losing, they lost some games really bad.
I would be willing to give up Brooks and an expiring for Nash straight up. No picks. And if PHX falls apart, they should be willing to accept this also. Brooks is a quality piece for them to build around. We can get 3 quality years out of Nash while Yao is recovered and in his peak. I believe Morey would do this deal every day of the week also. This would still leave us both Knick picks to upgrade another superstar and would possibly be enough to get Denver to move Melo over here if indeed Melo was willing to come. Nash Martin Melo Yao Scola Lowry Stackhouse (or similar) Lee Miller Dampier Jeffries (traded, released, re-signed) this assumes that Brooks, Budinger, Hill, Patterson, Taylor are all gone in the trade for Melo. Some of them may be left here. But that is a championship contending roster. Brooks and an expiring trumps Jameer Nelson and trash from Orlando.
For those who wouldn't trade Brooks for Nash, think again. If we got Nash, we would be instant contender. With Brooks, we are second tier at best. I'd take two years of productive Nash over a whole career of Brooks. Morey can find a Brooks or a Budinger again down the road. You don't "find" players like Nash. they have to fall on your lap. When one does, it'll be stupid pushing him away.
