Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
By Tom Haberstroh | ESPN.com
Phoenix Suns point guard Steve Nash, one of the top free agents this summer, joined the "Dan Patrick Show" this afternoon and made some comments that made ripples around the league.
"I'm not coming back to the Suns if there isn't improvement," Nash told Patrick.
Nash explained he's expecting the Suns to try to make those improvements, but that he's looking forward to becoming a free agent and deciding where to continue his career.
The hypothetical of LeBron James asking Nash to join up in Miami for one last push at a championship was brought up.
"I would listen," Nash said. "He's phenomenal. I love what they're doing there. A lot of people don't like them because they put all that talent there. But they're professional, they play hard, they play together. Their coaching staff has done a great job, so I have a tremendous amount of respect for them.
"I would definitely listen."
It shouldn't surprise anyone the 38-year-old point guard without a world championship might be enticed by the idea of joining a contender that has what many consider a relative hole at the point guard slot.
Keeping the Heat in the conversation could be used as leverage in negotiations with other teams. But joining the Heat would mean that Nash would be leaving millions of dollars on the table.
The Heat won't have any salary-cap space next summer, so Nash would have to settle for the mid-level exception if he wanted to join the club.
Plenty of teams, including the Suns, could offer much more money than the Heat.
But for someone who has earned about $120 million during his career, sacrificing some money for winning a title might be palatable to Nash.
The 38-year-old Nash is averaging 12 points and 11 assists with a true shooting percentage (which incorporates 2-point shots, 3-point shots and free throw percentage together) of 62.7.
Well if Nash goes to Miami Lebron will finally win his NBA title, I've always said if Nash was on that team instead of Lebron they would have won last year as he is amazing at moving the ball around.
If Miami had Steve Nash instead of LeBron last year then they wouldn't have even made the finals. Steve Nash is a future HOFer but like LeBron he has never won a title despite playing on some very good teams. Nash also doesn't play any defense, something LeBron excels at even when the rest of his game is struggling.
If Miami had Steve Nash instead of LeBron last year then they wouldn't have even made the finals. Steve Nash is a future HOFer but like LeBron he has never won a title despite playing on some very good teams. Nash also doesn't play any defense, something LeBron excels at even when the rest of his game is struggling.
Nash makes everyone on his team look better. Both Wade and Bosh would have been averaging 35 points a game if Nash was on that team. He may not play good defense like Lebron but offensively the team would have been much better and against a team like Dallas it would have been a shootout every game.
Well if they didn't the Bulls would have been in the finals and I would have been happy.
Nash makes everyone on his team look better. Both Wade and Bosh would have been averaging 35 points a game if Nash was on that team. He may not play good defense like Lebron but offensively the team would have been much better and against a team like Dallas it would have been a shootout every game.
I'm not arguing who the better player is as Lebron is certainly a better player, but the real question is this. Is Lebron a better playoff player than Nash, more notably in the finals?
I can also use the argument that Lebron had teams in Cleveland that could have won the NBA title just like Nash did in Phoenix. Cleveland often had a great regular season record, looked like they were destined to take it all but would get knocked out in the second round outside the year they went to the finals only to get annihilated by San Antonio.
I'm not arguing who the better player is as Lebron is certainly a better player, but the real question is this. Is Lebron a better playoff player than Nash, more notably in the finals?
I don't know why but when Lebron was needed the most last year he simply didn't play up to the standards we are used to seeing him play at, his numbers fell significantly at the worst possible time.
I can also use the argument that Lebron had teams in Cleveland that could have won the NBA title just like Nash did in Phoenix. Cleveland often had a great regular season record, looked like they were destined to take it all but would get knocked out in the second round outside the year they went to the finals only to get annihilated by San Antonio.
My big thing is you don't have to worry about Nash falling apart in the playoffs, the same thing can't be said about Lebron. The only reason he's in Miami in the first place is because Wade has proven he can get the job done. If Wade never won an NBA title, Lebron wouldn't be in Miami.
Considering Steve Nash has never been to the finals before then I'm going to go ahead and say that LeBron is the better post season player.
LeBron never had the talent in Cleveland that Nash did in Phoenix. He had Mo Williams for two years, Antawn Jamison for half a year, and Big Z who kept deteriorating as the years went on.
Well, Lebron doesn't have that excuse anymore and I didn't see him getting the job done last year.
He didn't have a superstar team in Cleveland but there was certainly enough talent in Cleveland for Lebron to win the title.
Also with Nash even though he had Amare and Marion I didn't see them winning too many games until Nash got there, that's when the team started to look like a threat. He may not have made it to the finals, but he was playing in a much harder conference with much tougher teams than Lebron ever did in the playoffs.
Not unless LeBron beyond flawless for an entire playoff run, and even then it may not have been enough. Go find one of those Cleveland teams that you think should have won the title and I'll show at least two teams better. Last year he should have won, the previous years it would have been an upset for him to win.
They were an extremely young team and D'Antoni just took over part way through the season the year before Nash go there. The Suns rise was a combination of many things from the arrival of Steve Nash, to D'Antoni's system being fully in place, to the continued development of the young guys like Amare and Joe Johnson. The West was definitely a tougher conference but with the talent Nash had, those teams were capable of making at least one NBA Finals. LeBron took a garbage team to the Finals over a great Detroit Pistons team while Nash couldn't get the Suns over that hump.
You don't need to have the best team to win the NBA title, being the best team throughout the year and being the champs are 2 different things, the Giants are living proof of that. When Detroit in 04 won the NBA title they weren't the best team but they played the best when it counted.
I don't think Lebron had to play flawless in Cleveland he just had to up his game.
Its never a 1 man effort but I think its fair to say Nash was the #1 reason that team turned it around which is why he won the MVP award the next 2 seasons. The Suns had probably 3-4 teams that should have made it I'll admit that, but getting past teams like the Spurs and the Mavericks in that point in time is a very difficult thing to accomplish, I don't think anyone would have got past them during that point int time.
Lebron's Cleveland teams certainly weren't better but saying Lebron took them to the finals by himself is an unfair statement, the same as calling them a garbage team, especially since the team record was often better without Lebron playing.
Also I will say is the year Cleveland made it to the finals I saw Phoenix put up much more of a fight against the Spurs than Cleveland did, they didn't get swept and almost made it a 7 game series.
I agree with some of what you said, most notably that the West has been harder than the East. But with that said there is simply no reasonable argument that Nash is more valuable to a team than Lebron. When Lebron came to the league he came to a team that had the absolute worst record in the league. In two years he took that team to conference semis. In 3 years they were in the NBA Finals, and every year either finishing with the best record or making Conference finals. But as soon as he left that same team ended up finishing with the worst record in the league. When Nash left the Mavericks they seemed to be just fine.
Also even if everything you say is true you have to keep in mind, majority of the stuff you are bringing up is when Steve Nash was in his prime, not 37 like he was last year. There is absolutely no way that a 37 year old Nash would be better for a team than a prime Lebron.
You don't need to have the best team to win the NBA title, being the best team throughout the year and being the champs are 2 different things, the Giants are living proof of that. When Detroit in 04 won the NBA title they weren't the best team but they played the best when it counted.
I don't think Lebron had to play flawless in Cleveland he just had to up his game.
Its never a 1 man effort but I think its fair to say Nash was the #1 reason that team turned it around which is why he won the MVP award the next 2 seasons. The Suns had probably 3-4 teams that should have made it I'll admit that, but getting past teams like the Spurs and the Mavericks in that point in time is a very difficult thing to accomplish, I don't think anyone would have got past them during that point int time.
Lebron's Cleveland teams certainly weren't better but saying Lebron took them to the finals by himself is an unfair statement, the same as calling them a garbage team, especially since the team record was often better without Lebron playing.
Also I will say is the year Cleveland made it to the finals I saw Phoenix put up much more of a fight against the Spurs than Cleveland did, they didn't get swept and almost made it a 7 game series.