I find these two quotes very interesting.
|Blazers coach Nate McMillan agreed. When asked to identify some of the NBA's toughest players, his answers were unexpected. The first name mentioned? Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns.
And while there was certainly much to discuss regarding the veteran -- and plenty to dissect about woeful shooting and team hexes -- Trail Blazers coach Nate McMillan singled out another painful catalyst behind his team's 102-92 loss to the Phoenix Suns before 18,422 at US Airways Center:
"I think the guy is Nash," McMillan said. "He is still orchestrating that offense and getting everybody involved and (regarding) time, score and situation, he is probably as good as I've seen. That guy is a two-time MVP. Shaq did some good things; all those guys did some good things. But that show runs with Nash."
Nash would get us a few more turnovers, but could still play off the ball as a shooter ala Blake in the half-court, Brandon would still be our iso guy, and Nash wants fewer touches/minutes as he age to preserve his career, and Brandon would have to carry less of the load (which is currently very unrealistic long-term) while getting some more easy buckets off cuts (which will benefit our other players once he learns).
Getting Nash would help us now, but long-term it'd help us a lot with Brandon's off-ball development and the development of our bigs with all the easy buckets they'd get. It'd also help the team learn how to sufficiently get easy buckets on the break for the long-term.
I'm not a proponent of Nash for the next 3-4 years, I'm a proponent of Nash and a prospect him behind him. It could be Jennings, Rubio, etc etc (though I think we'd have to give up Bayless to get Nash)