Well considering Blake is coming off the best year of his career I'd say Nate is doing fine. Gary Payton was great his last couple years in Seattle under Nate. The other talented PG's Nate has taught have been Telfair, Jack and Ridnour. I don't think teaching or allowing them more creativity would have resulted in better performance out of Nate coached teams.
I like Sessions, and I'd suggest we trade Outlaw for Sessions (S&T) at full MLE price. I fear the biggest problem in getting him (if management wants him) is convincing him and the Bucks to cooperate with us. If he signs an offer sheet, they could just match it, and then an S&T is no longer an option. If we don't, then he could sign one elsewhere, causing the same result. We either need to offer him a contract that we know MIL won't match ($40M/5y?), or convince him and MIL that an S&T deal with us is best for everyone.
Kidd can't defend point guards anymore, the Mavs had to switch Barea and Terry on to them and Kidd guarded the SG. We can't do that with Roy. I'd make sure there's no chance of Sessions or Hinrich before looking at the trio (Nash, Kidd, Miller) of vets.
I said Sessions, but he is 2nd to Harris. I also want Rubio, who seems available, and then a bunch of others who probably aren't available like Westbrook, Stuckey, and Rondo.
Kidd is old and can't defend most points anymore. That is a problem. Miller does not have deep playoff experience, can't shoot for distance and is old, but has been durable so far in his career. Sessions hasn't proven much in the NBA and can't shoot a jumper. Nash is old and can't play defense. Bibby is little better than Blake at this point. Harris isn't playing defense like he used to anymore and would cost a lot to obtain. Rondo can't shoot and may be a troublemaker and would cost a lot to obtain. Kirk is the Goldilocks of point guards. He is good, not great. He can dish a little, but isn't a creator. He plays decent defense, but is no stopper like Rondo. He can shoot the long ball, but is streaky. He can score, but you can't count on it. He is a vet, but isn't ancient. He has past injury history, but not shot knees (Kidd) or back (Nash). He won't be free to obtain, but he won't cost the farm. Regardless of price: Paul Williams Rose Rondo Parker Harris Billups Kirk Sessions Nelson Miller Calderon Kidd Nash Bibby
I chose "other". If only we could find a tough, strong kid that can play D, score at the rim or shoot and has tonz of potential?? Hmm, wonder if Bayless is available?
None of those 6 things helps with that this team needs. PASSING THE BALL TO OUR BIGS. Sure, it would be good if our PG was all of those things. But the main job of the person whose job it is to bring the ball up the floor and set up the offense is to get it to scorers in position to score. In our case, we have a severely under-utilized big man who has a crazy rebounding rate and an insane fouls-against-him percentage. Our efficiency goes up just by passing him the ball in position to score. And yet our PGs seem not to be able to do that. That's one of the reasons I'm so against Bibby, and kind of against Miller. Hinrich would be ok. Kidd and Nash (and Sessions, if it were possible) are guys that thrive on getting teammates involved and making them better.
Nash I'm getting on board the Nash bandwagon. Miller is asking far too much and not worth getting into a bidding war with the sixers (whoose primary goal is to re-sign Miller.) Bibby is barely an upgrade. Chicago and Ptd will not find common ground to pull off a trade for Kirk (who isn't the long term answer). The Bucks will resign Sessions. I say think short term . . . think about bringing in another PG in 1-2 years (Bayless, Kopenhagen, Aussie boy or trade). But for now, rather than lock up a Miller or Bibby for 3-4 years, take Nash with 2 years. He will take control of the offense, brings a whole different dynamic (not just a small upgrade from Blake) and mostly I could see Nash being effective with Oden. It is an expensive but short commitment that improves the team next year!
