Nash openly admitted (despite not being able to play) that he wouldn't retire before last season because he wanted the money, openly admitted that.
I find it odd that Nash's no-duh comment (I want the money I am contractually owed) is such a big deal to some people.
The weird thing is that there was never any question Nash would get all the money he was owed -- the only question was whether an insurance company would pay a small portion of it.
I don't find it odd at all. On occasion, I get the sneaking suspicion that a lot of posters here just want a reason to be angry.
It's almost as if they are reactionary children hiding behind some kind of anonymity.
Being mad at someone actually wanting to try to continue to play rather than give up, where there is no financial gain or loss to the people complaining about it? That's just crazy talk.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90305 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:30 pm Post subject:
Hector the Pup wrote:
activeverb wrote:
tolivendiewithLA wrote:
Nash openly admitted (despite not being able to play) that he wouldn't retire before last season because he wanted the money, openly admitted that.
I find it odd that Nash's no-duh comment (I want the money I am contractually owed) is such a big deal to some people.
The weird thing is that there was never any question Nash would get all the money he was owed -- the only question was whether an insurance company would pay a small portion of it.
I don't find it odd at all. On occasion, I get the sneaking suspicion that a lot of posters here just want a reason to be angry.
It's almost as if they are reactionary children hiding behind some kind of anonymity.
Being mad at someone actually wanting to try to continue to play rather than give up, where there is no financial gain or loss to the people complaining about it? That's just crazy talk.
Nash would have gotten all the money through a medical retirement. He continued to put himself through torture because he wanted to play. I totally respect that.
The reason why the Lakers cannot attract blue chip FA is because of what?
The Kobe factor. Top free agents don't want to play second fiddle to an aging, injured legend who's going to be the alpha dog. I didn't think we'd get a great free agent until either Kobe retires, or a year after Kobe leaves for another team.
Nash openly admitted (despite not being able to play) that he wouldn't retire before last season because he wanted the money, openly admitted that.
I find it odd that Nash's no-duh comment (I want the money I am contractually owed) is such a big deal to some people.
The weird thing is that there was never any question Nash would get all the money he was owed -- the only question was whether an insurance company would pay a small portion of it.
I don't find it odd at all. On occasion, I get the sneaking suspicion that a lot of posters here just want a reason to be angry.
It's almost as if they are reactionary children hiding behind some kind of anonymity.
Being mad at someone actually wanting to try to continue to play rather than give up, where there is no financial gain or loss to the people complaining about it? That's just crazy talk.
I get the emotional reaction. Fans are angry and they want to punish Nash. They want him to apologize for getting injured and give back the money because they are frustrated with the situation.
Obviously I wish Steve Nash were still involved with the Lakers in any capacity but looking at it objectively he made a good choice as far as being involved with a ball club that can give him championship experience more presently despite it being equally a non-guarantee.
However, I do wish he could have been more sentimental about it, seeing a golden opportunity to put his fingerprints all over DLo's development instead of just showing an already proven player how to be more proven.
I mean, I thought we did him a real solid with his contract's payout but I guess business is business.
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:52 pm Post subject:
Sharoon Francis wrote:
Obviously I wish Steve Nash were still involved with the Lakers in any capacity but looking at it objectively he made a good choice as far as being involved with a ball club that can give him championship experience more presently despite it being equally a non-guarantee.
However, I do wish he could have been more sentimental about it, seeing a golden opportunity to put his fingerprints all over DLo's development instead of just showing an already proven player how to be more proven.
I mean, I thought we did him a real solid with his contract's payout but I guess business is business.
Honestly, I'm not sure the Lakers wanted him. Their thing seems to be hiring "within the family" to tutor their players.
The reason why the Lakers cannot attract blue chip FA is because of what?
The Kobe factor. Top free agents don't want to play second fiddle to an aging, injured legend who's going to be the alpha dog. I didn't think we'd get a great free agent until either Kobe retires, or a year after Kobe leaves for another team.
It's more likely that the reason is that until some of the younger players prove themselves, the top FA's would be going to a team whose best player is 37 and coming off of multiple season ending injuries.
With the money being the same no matter the team, does that really sound like the best destination?
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90305 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:57 pm Post subject:
Hector the Pup wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Voices wrote:
The reason why the Lakers cannot attract blue chip FA is because of what?
The Kobe factor. Top free agents don't want to play second fiddle to an aging, injured legend who's going to be the alpha dog. I didn't think we'd get a great free agent until either Kobe retires, or a year after Kobe leaves for another team.
It's more likely that the reason is that until some of the younger players prove themselves, the top FA's would be going to a team whose best player is 37 and coming off of multiple season ending injuries.
With the money being the same no matter the team, does that really sound like the best destination?
Yeah, not many plum free agents sign with rebuilding teams at the bottom.
The reason why the Lakers cannot attract blue chip FA is because of what?
The Kobe factor. Top free agents don't want to play second fiddle to an aging, injured legend who's going to be the alpha dog. I didn't think we'd get a great free agent until either Kobe retires, or a year after Kobe leaves for another team.
It's more likely that the reason is that until some of the younger players prove themselves, the top FA's would be going to a team whose best player is 37 and coming off of multiple season ending injuries.
With the money being the same no matter the team, does that really sound like the best destination?
Sure, that's part of it. But I think the Kobe factor is just as big. I think there are guys who'd love to be the new Batman of the Lakers; at this point, I don't think there are many who want to be the Robin to Kobe's Batman.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:35 pm Post subject:
Sharoon Francis wrote:
Obviously I wish Steve Nash were still involved with the Lakers in any capacity but looking at it objectively he made a good choice as far as being involved with a ball club that can give him championship experience more presently despite it being equally a non-guarantee.
However, I do wish he could have been more sentimental about it, seeing a golden opportunity to put his fingerprints all over DLo's development instead of just showing an already proven player how to be more proven.
I mean, I thought we did him a real solid with his contract's payout but I guess business is business.
Curry is already a better player than Nash ever was. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
The reason why the Lakers cannot attract blue chip FA is because of what?
The Kobe factor. Top free agents don't want to play second fiddle to an aging, injured legend who's going to be the alpha dog. I didn't think we'd get a great free agent until either Kobe retires, or a year after Kobe leaves for another team.
It's more likely that the reason is that until some of the younger players prove themselves, the top FA's would be going to a team whose best player is 37 and coming off of multiple season ending injuries.
With the money being the same no matter the team, does that really sound like the best destination?
Sure, that's part of it. But I think the Kobe factor is just as big. I think there are guys who'd love to be the new Batman of the Lakers; at this point, I don't think there are many who want to be the Robin to Kobe's Batman.
It's like you're trying to find a reason to blame Kobe. And it's a pure guess on your part with little evidence. Count how many stars leave teams to go to a rebuilding team. It doesn't happen unless there are other stars there. Kobe is an aging star. As others have said. Until our core proves itself, we won't be an attractive destination.
The reason why the Lakers cannot attract blue chip FA is because of what?
The Kobe factor. Top free agents don't want to play second fiddle to an aging, injured legend who's going to be the alpha dog. I didn't think we'd get a great free agent until either Kobe retires, or a year after Kobe leaves for another team.
It's more likely that the reason is that until some of the younger players prove themselves, the top FA's would be going to a team whose best player is 37 and coming off of multiple season ending injuries.
With the money being the same no matter the team, does that really sound like the best destination?
Sure, that's part of it. But I think the Kobe factor is just as big. I think there are guys who'd love to be the new Batman of the Lakers; at this point, I don't think there are many who want to be the Robin to Kobe's Batman.
It's like you're trying to find a reason to blame Kobe. And it's a pure guess on your part with little evidence. Count how many stars leave teams to go to a rebuilding team. It doesn't happen unless there are other stars there. Kobe is an aging star. As others have said. Until our core proves itself, we won't be an attractive destination.
And when they do Nash won't be a part of it. Time to move on fellas.
Nash openly admitted (despite not being able to play) that he wouldn't retire before last season because he wanted the money, openly admitted that.
I find it odd that Nash's no-duh comment (I want the money I am contractually owed) is such a big deal to some people.
The weird thing is that there was never any question Nash would get all the money he was owed -- the only question was whether an insurance company would pay a small portion of it.
I don't find it odd at all. On occasion, I get the sneaking suspicion that a lot of posters here just want a reason to be angry.
It's almost as if they are reactionary children hiding behind some kind of anonymity.
Being mad at someone actually wanting to try to continue to play rather than give up, where there is no financial gain or loss to the people complaining about it? That's just crazy talk.
I get the emotional reaction. Fans are angry and they want to punish Nash. They want him to apologize for getting injured and give back the money because they are frustrated with the situation.
I think those fans should get over themselves. They want to punish Nash and have him apologize for getting injured? And to give money back? lol How can you type that with a straight face?
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 8287 Location: Oxnard, Ca.
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:05 pm Post subject:
I don't buy those that say the reason blue chip FA don't want to play/sign with the Lakers is because they do not want to be part of rebuilding process. The Lakers are a perfect situation for FA's. Two Blue chip FA could instantaneously change the Lakers fortune, there are only 5 starters on a b ball team. In the past players wanted to be part of the Lakers because of the great living and working conditions as well as being part of a team with a great past.
The Dodgers fortune immediately changed when new ownership/management took over. IMO the Lakers fortune would change instantly as well with new respected establish management!
It's really a shame that the only way for some bad teams to get better is to have a terrible team and then get high draft picks. The Spurs have proved that good management can continue to put a great product on the table year after year without loosing. The Lakers gave away their future with being careless with their draft picks, four draft picks, 2 first and 2 seconds for an over the hill UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT that's just one example, another is the Dwight Howard mess, there are others. THEN we have the horrible coaching decisions. Who the hell wanted to play for BROWN/MR. POTATO HEAD or that frigging nut MDA. There is one thing that I can say about MDA he could sucked more money out of the Lakers but he is a man with ethics, he wanted to do things his way and when the Lakers said no he resigned that left millions on the table, quality man crazy b ball philosophy. _________________ .....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20.
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 8287 Location: Oxnard, Ca.
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:27 pm Post subject:
CandyCanes wrote:
Sharoon Francis wrote:
Obviously I wish Steve Nash were still involved with the Lakers in any capacity but looking at it objectively he made a good choice as far as being involved with a ball club that can give him championship experience more presently despite it being equally a non-guarantee.
However, I do wish he could have been more sentimental about it, seeing a golden opportunity to put his fingerprints all over DLo's development instead of just showing an already proven player how to be more proven.
I mean, I thought we did him a real solid with his contract's payout but I guess business is business.
Curry is already a better player than Nash ever was.
I am not a Nash fan but prime Nash put up huge numbers, there was a six year span where he averaged 11 dimes and 16 points while shooting over 50% from the field and over 90% from the Ft line.
The biggest difference between the two, Curry has class and a LARRY O'BRIEN TROPHY, Nash only dreams about the Larry O'Brien trophy. _________________ .....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20.
The reason why the Lakers cannot attract blue chip FA is because of what?
The Kobe factor. Top free agents don't want to play second fiddle to an aging, injured legend who's going to be the alpha dog. I didn't think we'd get a great free agent until either Kobe retires, or a year after Kobe leaves for another team.
It's more likely that the reason is that until some of the younger players prove themselves, the top FA's would be going to a team whose best player is 37 and coming off of multiple season ending injuries.
With the money being the same no matter the team, does that really sound like the best destination?
Sure, that's part of it. But I think the Kobe factor is just as big. I think there are guys who'd love to be the new Batman of the Lakers; at this point, I don't think there are many who want to be the Robin to Kobe's Batman.
Do you really think the players we've gone after the last few years have looked at this roster and thought "there won't be enough shots/responsibility for me on that team"? Or is it that there would be too much? Ever since Lebron joined the Heat, the singular trend in FA movement is joining a team with enough talent to compete. The one exception is probably Melo, who clearly wanted the money above all else.
If the Lakers had the cap space for a Superman and say an Aquaman to play to Kobe's Batman (i'm thinking more a Justice League analogy), they could've done it. It's less Kobe's mentality than it is the economic reality of his contract, which over the last two offseasons has only afforded us the space to sign one marquee guy. That's not enough.
The reason why the Lakers cannot attract blue chip FA is because of what?
The Kobe factor. Top free agents don't want to play second fiddle to an aging, injured legend who's going to be the alpha dog. I didn't think we'd get a great free agent until either Kobe retires, or a year after Kobe leaves for another team.
It's more likely that the reason is that until some of the younger players prove themselves, the top FA's would be going to a team whose best player is 37 and coming off of multiple season ending injuries.
With the money being the same no matter the team, does that really sound like the best destination?
Sure, that's part of it. But I think the Kobe factor is just as big. I think there are guys who'd love to be the new Batman of the Lakers; at this point, I don't think there are many who want to be the Robin to Kobe's Batman.
Do you really think the players we've gone after the last few years have looked at this roster and thought "there won't be enough shots/responsibility for me on that team"? Or is it that there would be too much? Ever since Lebron joined the Heat, the singular trend in FA movement is joining a team with enough talent to compete. The one exception is probably Melo, who clearly wanted the money above all else.
If the Lakers had the cap space for a Superman and say an Aquaman to play to Kobe's Batman (i'm thinking more a Justice League analogy), they could've done it. It's less Kobe's mentality than it is the economic reality of his contract, which over the last two offseasons has only afforded us the space to sign one marquee guy. That's not enough.
Like I said, I don't think a star wants to play second fiddle to an aging, injury-prone legend who insists on being the alpha. It's a different situation than young guys in their prime getting together. As soon as Kobe retires, some star will want to be the new face of the franchise.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Curry is already better than Nash ever was.
I mean, maybe.
But it's not exactly apples to apples comparison...
Nash was just an all around once-in-a-generation play maker who got robbed by SAS thuggery over and over again.
For a while I wondered what could've been if Nash had gone to play small ball with OKC after they got rid of that beard guy. Nash to Westbrook fast breaks would've been a thing of beauty. Would've been a straight up torpedo offense, like when the French national soccer team was able to run Zidane with Thierry... beautiful game, indeed.
Hopefully that's what DLo and Clarkson will be able to harness with their natural skills.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:00 am Post subject:
Sharoon Francis wrote:
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Curry is already better than Nash ever was.
I mean, maybe.
But it's not exactly apples to apples comparison...
Nash was just an all around once-in-a-generation play maker who got robbed by SAS thuggery over and over again.
For a while I wondered what could've been if Nash had gone to play small ball with OKC after they got rid of that beard guy. Nash to Westbrook fast breaks would've been a thing of beauty. Would've been a straight up torpedo offense, like when the French national soccer team was able to run Zidane with Thierry... beautiful game, indeed.
Hopefully that's what DLo and Clarkson will be able to harness with their natural skills.
Jason Kidd. Chris Paul. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Curry is already better than Nash ever was.
I mean, maybe.
But it's not exactly apples to apples comparison...
Nash was just an all around once-in-a-generation play maker who got robbed by SAS thuggery over and over again.
For a while I wondered what could've been if Nash had gone to play small ball with OKC after they got rid of that beard guy. Nash to Westbrook fast breaks would've been a thing of beauty. Would've been a straight up torpedo offense, like when the French national soccer team was able to run Zidane with Thierry... beautiful game, indeed.
Hopefully that's what DLo and Clarkson will be able to harness with their natural skills.
Jason Kidd. Chris Paul.
Ok, you got me. I got got. But if I may be so bold as to redefine the notion of "generations"... I think it's arguable that Kidd did peak way before Nash, and Paul peaked way after Nash. So let me just move the goal posts and have an out by saying that all three were once-in-a-generation, each of their own respective generation.
Ok, but seriously, if I did have to discredit either of those three, it wouldn't be Nash. That's all I'm saying. Dude went from being second string on some already underachieving Dallas team, to being a two-time MVP. That's almost unheard of... and it wasn't a fluke or a hat trick. He cemented a real legacy in PHX and perhaps in our heart of hearts.
Now, I know the MVP award doesn't mean squat unless Kobe gets it, but I think it would easily be disingenuous of all of us to suggest that he didn't really deserve to at least be in contention for the MVP award each time that he won it.
By the way, I hope you guys are enjoying this back and forth as much as I am.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:26 pm Post subject:
Sharoon Francis wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
Sharoon Francis wrote:
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Curry is already better than Nash ever was.
I mean, maybe.
But it's not exactly apples to apples comparison...
Nash was just an all around once-in-a-generation play maker who got robbed by SAS thuggery over and over again.
For a while I wondered what could've been if Nash had gone to play small ball with OKC after they got rid of that beard guy. Nash to Westbrook fast breaks would've been a thing of beauty. Would've been a straight up torpedo offense, like when the French national soccer team was able to run Zidane with Thierry... beautiful game, indeed.
Hopefully that's what DLo and Clarkson will be able to harness with their natural skills.
Jason Kidd. Chris Paul.
Ok, you got me. I got got. But if I may be so bold as to redefine the notion of "generations"... I think it's arguable that Kidd did peak way before Nash, and Paul peaked way after Nash. So let me just move the goal posts and have an out by saying that all three were once-in-a-generation, each of their own respective generation.
Ok, but seriously, if I did have to discredit either of those three, it wouldn't be Nash. That's all I'm saying. Dude went from being second string on some already underachieving Dallas team, to being a two-time MVP. That's almost unheard of... and it wasn't a fluke or a hat trick. He cemented a real legacy in PHX and perhaps in our heart of hearts.
Now, I know the MVP award doesn't mean squat unless Kobe gets it, but I think it would easily be disingenuous of all of us to suggest that he didn't really deserve to at least be in contention for the MVP award each time that he won it.
By the way, I hope you guys are enjoying this back and forth as much as I am.
You don't think that had anything to do with D'Antoni's offense? Also, I think you underestimate just how hard it is to win a championship when you have a perennial defensive cancer like Nash on the team. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Curry is already better than Nash ever was.
I mean, maybe.
But it's not exactly apples to apples comparison...
Nash was just an all around once-in-a-generation play maker who got robbed by SAS thuggery over and over again.
For a while I wondered what could've been if Nash had gone to play small ball with OKC after they got rid of that beard guy. Nash to Westbrook fast breaks would've been a thing of beauty. Would've been a straight up torpedo offense, like when the French national soccer team was able to run Zidane with Thierry... beautiful game, indeed.
Hopefully that's what DLo and Clarkson will be able to harness with their natural skills.
Jason Kidd. Chris Paul.
Ok, you got me. I got got. But if I may be so bold as to redefine the notion of "generations"... I think it's arguable that Kidd did peak way before Nash, and Paul peaked way after Nash. So let me just move the goal posts and have an out by saying that all three were once-in-a-generation, each of their own respective generation.
Ok, but seriously, if I did have to discredit either of those three, it wouldn't be Nash. That's all I'm saying. Dude went from being second string on some already underachieving Dallas team, to being a two-time MVP. That's almost unheard of... and it wasn't a fluke or a hat trick. He cemented a real legacy in PHX and perhaps in our heart of hearts.
Now, I know the MVP award doesn't mean squat unless Kobe gets it, but I think it would easily be disingenuous of all of us to suggest that he didn't really deserve to at least be in contention for the MVP award each time that he won it.
By the way, I hope you guys are enjoying this back and forth as much as I am.
You don't think that had anything to do with D'Antoni's offense? Also, I think you underestimate just how hard it is to win a championship when you have a perennial defensive cancer like Nash on the team.
Alright, well, I guess you're right. Maybe I really am wasting all these blues on a nobody. It would be better to remorse over how we almost had Kidd and Garnett in their primes once upon a time.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum