Meh, it's not really my plan, because like I said it'd be paying too much salary for a small upgrade.
I would agree that Nash is a better scorer. I still don't want him in Portland for the tiny amount of career he has left.
nash is better than blake at everything but defense. that includes both shooting and scoring. but there really is no reason for portland to give up anything to acquire him.
They also gave away (sold) Rajon Rondo to the Celts. Man, it must totally suck to have a cheap ass/cash strapped owner. Their championship window was way too short, and was never fully opened, due to the fact that they gave away so many valuable young assets. Ironically, they brought in a vastly overpaid Shaq in a desparate hope of extending their window and all it did was shorten their window further. Imagine how much better their team would be in they'd just kept Rondo and Rudy to give them some fresh young legs so they wouldn't have to rely on their trio of senior citizens so much. BNM
Don't forget Iguodala/Deng (or whoever they would have used their 2004 #7 pick on). It truly is head-scratching.
Had they added Iguodala, Fernandez and Rondo to a core of Amare, Nash, Johnson, Marion and Barbosa...they'd be just a nightmare, in the present and future.
I am actually surprised nobody has really brought up the fact that Nash is much more effective if in a run and gun system. As opposed to Nate's system.
I just checked, and it really could have been EITHER Iggy, Rondo or Rudy. They traded the 2004 #7 (Iguodala) for a future pick that turned out to be Rondo, which they traded for the #24 in 2007 (Rudy) which they sold to Portland. I don't know if it looks better or worse this way (seeing that they had 2 chances to redeem themselves but they ended up with nothing but cash). Bill Simmons wrapped it all up pretty nicely:
Nash has proven he can play slower playoff ball in the playoffs before and that's 10X what you can say about Blake. Nash would (and has) looked tremendously better playing with good defenders in the post as teams don't abuse the pick n roll then. He's not a lock down perimeter defender, but he's fine against the weaker of a team's PG/SG IF you have good defensive bigs who can rotate behind him (like Aldridge/Oden/Pryz or Marion/Diaw/Thomas). Nash looked good to me in his 'slow' matchups against the spurs in the playoffs, and he was a damn fine PG in a slower Dallas system before. As for him and Roy, Nash could use the reduced wear and tear on his body, he's one of the top ten best 3pt% shooters in NBA history so I think he'd spread the floor fine off the ball, and Roy (and the team) is better when occasionally moving off the ball (he's done better lately w/Blake) instead of Iso's all day.
Nash has proven that even at his peak - with a great system that maximizes his effectiveness, and with great team-mates - he could never make it to the finals. While the pace was slower in the playoffs - it was still faster than the typical Blazers pace and Nash is pretty much running on fumes. He will be a marginal upgrade on offense (if he stays the same next year - but at this point in his career - it is more likely that he will continue to decline next year), a downgrade on defense and his window of effectiveness is very short. He is just the wrong player for this Blazers team at this junction in history.
nash didn't ever make the finals but he also didn't prove that he is completely unable of ever making the finals.
Was he really playing with GREAT players that whole time? Let's be honest here, a lot of the guys he had to play with were very 1 dimensional. Marion Nash made and that's been proven since his departure, Diaw was inconsistent, Amare plays on 1 side of the ball, Bell was very limited, and Thomas was old and no offensive threat. C'mon man you know a surrounding cast of Roy, Rudy, LMA, and Oden is much better than his Phoenix surrounding cast ever was. And he definitely would've made it to the finals if not for some terrible officiating. Yeah it wouldn't make any sense to bring in a great PG in transition to help our worst in the league fast break offense. He can definitely do what Blake does (sit in the corner and not make any passes to cutters) and a ton more to help our offense, and all of our PG's suck on defense anyways. Bring in Nash and you'd see Batum, Aldridge, and Oden's games explode while Roy's might take a short-term hit, he'd be better for it in the long-term. Roy isos constantly = a short career
Nash creates them and shoots them under pressure, Blake shoots them when the defense leaves him wide open, because he's such a limited offensive threat.
C'mon! Blake has owned Nash this year. Prior to the recent game where neither played much, the previous 2 games had Blake spanking Nash all over the place. In addition to out-scoring Nash, take a good look at the TOs for both in those 2 games. Nash does not play defense and turns the ball over - especially in the 4th, which costs games. This is terminal for the playoffs. He is not the answer for this team. Andre Miller is a much better option if you want to bring in a vet.
head to head matchups between nash and blake really mean almost nothing as far as comparing the two players. nash is much better and likely will continue to be much better for at least a couple more years. and andre miller is a terrible option for the blazers. it seems like some people here have fallen in love with the idea of getting him(or at least like the option), but i just don't see it at all.
It isn't like Blake doesn't turn it over in the 4th as well, and he misses crucial free throws. He also has the great ability to not be able to inbound the ball effectively on a consistent basis.
