Should Phoenix really trade Steve Nash?

@ignarus While I do see the merit and logic in your argument I really don't think you can connect Cuban letting Nash go and then eventually getting Kidd as a move that eventually paved the path to the Mavs winning the championship last year. For starters, way too much happened in between that we don't know how things would have turned out. You said it yourself that maybe Nash/Dirk would have produced a ring had they stayed together. Maybe in this alternate scenario of Nash staying the Mavs are eventually able to construct a defensively good enough roster to challenge for the title. We'll never know. I just think it's a stretch to look that far back. If Kidd came on board right after Nash I think your argument would be more legit. And secondly...I really think people overrated Kidd's defense and performance in general. Keep in mind I said overrated...I didn't say he was terrible. Chandler was the one instrumental in improving their defense. And also if anything Lebron being afraid of the moment was what stopped him. He absolutely should have demanded the ball against Kidd and destroyed him...unfortunately he played like a scared little girl and floated around the perimeter and played hot potato with the ball. Just IMO

Marginally related, "Joe Johnson's $20m/yr Contract" thoughts: Here's something I've been thinking about. I wonder if the max salary scale doesn't artificially make tier 2 guys who negotiate max contracts look like bad deals. Consider the following train of thought: 1) Lebron James has a max(ish) deal and he's getting ~$16m/year. 2) Joe Johnson is earning $20m/yr. 3) Lebron-as-basketball-player >> Joe Johnson-as-basketball-player 4) Thus, Joe Johnson is OVERPAID. Sounds familiar, right? Of course, there's something significantly wrong with that argument's validity and it's the premise that Lebron's salary is properly anchored to what he's worth. What's Lebron worth? It's estimated that he's actually worth about *twice* what he's getting paid, which puts his value at ~$30m. If Lebron pulled in $30m/yr, would it be absurd to say that Joe Johnson, an all-star in his prime and his team's best player, isn't 66% of what Lebron gets? That distorted comparison is all thanks to the salary cap. Of course, maybe JJ isn't really worth $20m a year (and more to the point, he's probably not going to be worth $28m/yr four years from now when he's halfway through his 30s), but that doesn't really diminish my point. As long as the salary cap is in place, there are going to be 2nd tier guys who are actually worth *precisely* what they'd get as a max salary players. It's not THOSE guys' faults, nor a result of bad negotiations between the owner and the agent, that they actually got paid what they were worth and the Lebrons of the league didn't.

And while there's a Steve Nash conversation in play, I want to point out that I really have to say Mark Cuban was too harsh on his judgment when he decided to let Nash go to Phx for what they offered. He thought it was too much, especially considering his back injuries, and Nash simply wasn't worth that much money to his team. He WAS worth that much to PHX, but that's not the point, is it? A guy can be crucial to one team but replaceable on another. There isn't an absolute value to a particular player such that because some team offers him more that it means you should match that offer. Ultimately, if Cuban had hung on to Nash, his team never would have nabbed a title by playing good enough defense to upset the Heat. Jason Kidd somehow defended both Kobe and Lebron and there's just no way in heck Nash could have managed that. Maybe there's some other way of arguing that the Mavs would have won it all with Nash and Dirk but the facts stand with Nash having won 2 MVPs and leading a legit championship contender in PHX with an all-out offensive coach while Dirk contended for titles with the Mavs under two defensive-minded coaches, won an MVP of his own, and went on to win it all last year. Both guys prospered under systems that played to their strengths and both guys played their best ball after going their separate ways. Personally, I thank Mark Cuban for making the tough call that made it all possible.

JJ -- you're right about players going where they want to, but I think that applies more to guys who have already made a significant amount of money. Or Kobe Bryant, who got drafted by the Hornets but got himself traded to the Lakers by saying he'd just go to college instead. I know the whole Kobe vs Lebron thing is mostly irrational fanboy nonsense on both sides, but if anybody killed Lebron for leaving Cleveland to play for a better organization, it's utter hypocrisy for not doing the same to Kobe for refusing to go to Charlotte in the very first place. (For the record, I don't hold it against either guy for recognizing that badly run organizations don't put together championship teams). It's especially bad with the salary cap. A Lebron simply can't earn what he's worth to whatever NBA team he plays on. It's simply not possible with the salary cap. So he's left looking at other things that are on the table. It's not unlike the pay-freeze system that was put in place in WWII to keep companies from poaching each others workers by offering more money. All that did was make companies try to figure out other ways of compensating their workers -- that's the primary historical reason why our health care system is primarily paid for by employers instead of funded through taxes like almost every other relatively well-off country in the world. I suppose it worked out well for the Wizards that they didn't end up paying Gilbert Arenas even MORE money after his knee surgery, but the lack of a true competitive advantage in re-signing a superstar has to have guys like Dan Gilbert and whoever owns Orlando wondering if the salary cap wasn't ill-considered for their needs.

The difference between the Suns tanking and Toronto is that players actually like playing in Phoenix. Forget about the money, players play in places they want to play, not a place because it's a small or big market.

If Suns didn't have Nash, people (including myself) would just laugh at their countless stupid moves (pretty much everything Sarver does) and misfortunes (hello Horry!). But, they have Nash. So, instead, people become sad and sympathetic when they see Suns... Nash, don't give up yet! Look at Jason Kidd. Maybe he can go play Heat for minimum and get a ring.

It kills me that Joe Johnson would have stayed if Sarver had recognized his worth and offered him a 5-year $40m extension. Instead, JJ leaves pissed and the Suns gradually become less and less talented. I'm convinced that Shawn Marion's decline would have been much less prominent if JJ had stuck around. And it's not like the Suns didn't jump at the opportunity to overpay Boris Diaw for stepping up in a contract year after NEVER having been notable before or after... Ugh, then there's the Kurt Thomas salary dump and the endless high talent draft picks Sarver sold... man, I gotta go do something to get my mind off this.

Yes, the Suns need to rebuild, but there's a limit to the value of a "get bad NOW" strategy. I'd hang on to Nash because he's a guy that people will buy tickets to see and fans will sour on you if you trade away their joy. Intentionally going for awful as a small market team with a reputedly miserly owner is a HUGE risk. You have a really solid chance of staying awful for a full decade if a couple of high draft picks don't work out. Unless the Suns can get some really good draft picks back, the only reason to trade Nash would be if he ASKED for it and you were looking to build a reputation as a guy who treats his players well.