I guess I was thinking there'd be an outside chance we could re-acquire Przybilla after his contract ends. (He lives here and likes it.) Also, I always felt Stoudemire and Marion got a lot of their "strut" from having Nash set them up for so long. I see it less as renting Nash for a likely second round (maybe WCF) run, than I do see it as an investment in Aldridge's future. Maybe Nash turns him into an All-NBAer like Roy, and superstar treatment from refs ensues. Aldridge averages an extra 4-7 ppg for the rest of his prime, even after Nash leaves. *shrug* I guess I'm also down on Batum lately. He's kind of in a funk. There's no way I'd suggest that trade a few months ago.... Meh, I guess it's not that hot of an idea.
Championship. Look what he did last year. Western Conference Finals. If Artest doesn't hit that show in Game 5, they maybe reach the Finals. Put Aldridge, Camby, Matthews, and Rudy or Batum with Nash and we could do the same thing. Dint underestimate what a two time MVP can do for your team.
For Senior citizen discounts.... but I'd still take him. Only problem I have is there better be another move that helps us be a contender because this move alone only makes us slightly better.
I still think Nash has a bit of good play left in his tank. I'd take him if we can draft a good young PG that we could groom behind him. Similar to what Phoenix is doing with Dragic and Denver with Lawson.
Nash is an upgrade over Miller, and he'll win more games than Miller. He'd probably guarantee that the Blazers make the playoffs, although I'm not sure Nash would want to come to Portland. A PG with a 24 PER for a PG with a 19 PER, when both can't play defense? Sure...
I meant in terms of winning a title. I know Nash is from BC, although he does now live in SoHo/NYC in the offseason. What if the Knicks can swing a deal for him? It would be Suns West!
If I were Nash, I would fight like the dickens to not play for slow McMillan. If the trade happned, he just might retire and stay where he lives. He'd give up 1-2 years of diminishing play in the wrong system for him under the Blazer injury curse in a cold climate in a small market. Did I leave anything out?
Nash's defense is worse. That said, if it were Nash straight up for Miller, I'd do it, too. Giving up Batum seems like a bad idea for a team who's window seems further into the future, unless they're getting back someone who's prime is likely to be a few years from now.
That's a bit like choosing between Shasta McNasty and Baywatch Nights as the better TV show. We all lose in the end.
Well, we could similarly say that both Matthews and a healthy Roy are good scorers, so it doesn't matter which we have. The actual amount of goodness and badness matters. Miller is now a poor man defender because he's lost a step, but he's still a pretty heady team defender. Nash has never been good at man or team defense. If Nash's defense yields more points for the opposing defense (as I believe it does), then it matters that he's worse.
Matthews isn't close to being in healthy Roy's league as a scorer. I don't think Wesley has been doubled even once this season. The rest of your post was irrelevant to me after reading the sentence I posted.
I'm afraid you missed the point. The point is that saying "bad is bad, differences in how bad are irrelevant" is just as silly as "good is good, differences in how good are irrelevant" (as I illustrated with Matthews and Roy). It is important to differentiate between different levels of good and bad. Both (healthy) Roy and Matthews are good, but Roy is better. Both Miller and Nash are bad on defense, but Nash is worse. Those differences matter in terms of winning games. Saying that both Nash and Miller aren't good on defense, so who cares about individually evaluating their defense is pretty faulty.
