rating mitch kupchak as a GM

[trojanfan12]

See my long post above. At that age, a player's health history is absolutely irrelevant, as proved by such cases as Cal Ripken and Karl Malone, and I'm not sure that Nash's injury was really a freak. Certainly, his recovery issues are not a freak and can almost assuredly be attributed to age and mileage, in large part.

Again, given his history (he had only had 1 season where he missed a lot of time ) it was worth a risk for a season or two.


If you want to build an up-tempo offense, you really should not be signing a thirty-eight-year old point guard. Indeed, in Nash's final two seasons in Phoenix, the area where his aging process proved most noticeable was in the decline of his open-court speed and ability to push the basketball. He compensated to a certain extent via the long pass, but without Grant Hill (Nash's favorite target on that play), or guys who were accustomed to that style, or young and athletic players in general, even that option was going to be marginalized in Los Angeles. Frankly, if you possess Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, and you're trying to trade for Dwight Howard, you need to be a half-court, post-up team. And if you want to add more speed, you need to do so in the form of a younger, faster, more explosive point guard who can run one-man fast breaks, especially one who can help you generate turnovers via steals and ball pressure, two areas where Nash won't help at all.

It wasn't necessarily about going completely uptempo right away. It was about having someone to distribute the ball more evenly to ease the burden on Kobe. It was about transitioning to something more uptempo with more ball movement. D'Antoni's offense isn't completely about "7 seconds or less". It's more about "move it or shoot it" and not letting the ball stagnate in one players hands. The young Nash was great for "7 seconds or less" this older Nash was still good for the "move it or shoot it" aspect.

And if Nash were to have become a backup, or a 20-minute per game player, then his contract would have become even more overpriced.

Yes and no. The final season or 2 may have been overpriced to a point, but he would still be of value (and actually has been) as a mentor to the Lakers younger guards.


The Howard experiment made sense because he was still relatively young and the Lakers merely gave up a center with bad knees in Bynum, one whose health constituted a ticking time bomb.



But Nash represented a totally different story, and I don't think that all other general managers would have inked him to a three-year contract. I mean, one could have plausibly argued that a point guard such as Mario Chalmers or Norris Cole would have made more sense for the Lakers moving forward, especially if the cost of acquiring Nash meant giving him three years.

They may not have inked him to a 3 year deal, but he'd have gotten 2 (which is what I thought he should have gotten).


... except that Nash's contract is delaying and hindering the process, at least to some extent. The Lakers need to reload around Kobe Bryant, and Nash is in the way.

Actually, he won't be in the way at all (or not much). The Lakers have 3 choices:

1.) He can medically retire. If this happens, the Lakers still have to pay his contract, but it doesn't count against the cap.

2.) The Lakers can release him, use the stretch provision and his salary only counts for $3million per year.

3.) He manages to play well and they can trade him for pennies (Toronto has shown interest) or keep him for the final year of his deal.

 

[GMATCa]

Actually, he won't be in the way at all (or not much). The Lakers have 3 choices:

1.) He can medically retire. If this happens, the Lakers still have to pay his contract, but it doesn't count against the cap.

2.) The Lakers can release him, use the stretch provision and his salary only counts for $3million per year.

3.) He manages to play well and they can trade him for pennies (Toronto has shown interest) or keep him for the final year of his deal.

Given his combination of age, health, and salary, I don't know how realistic the trade option happens to be. Toronto? Maybe.

I don't think that Nash will retire if he's at all able, physically. Would the Lakers release him? Perhaps, but the front office would need to swallow its pride ...

 

[trojanfan12]

Given his combination of age, health, and salary, I don't know how realistic the trade option happens to be. Toronto? Maybe.

I don't think that Nash will retire if he's at all able, physically. Would the Lakers release him? Perhaps, but the front office would need to swallow its pride ...

He's pretty well said that if he's healthy enough, he wants to play. So, you're definitely right that if he's able, he'll play. I really feel for the guy, because I know that he is upset and frustrated that he hasn't lived up to his end of the bargain. What's happened to him isn't his fault, but in every interview he has talked about how bad he feels not being able to live up to his contract.

Yeah, there has been some mild interest from Toronto because he's Canadian and it will put butts in seats. But I can't see Toronto giving anything but a future 2nd round pick for him. Which would be just fine actually.

Agree the Lakers FO would have to swallow some pride to release him. I think they'd only do it to make cap room if they were going to get a good FA.

 

[GMATCa]

He's pretty well said that if he's healthy enough, he wants to play. So, you're definitely right that if he's able, he'll play. I really feel for the guy, because I know that he is upset and frustrated that he hasn't lived up to his end of the bargain. What's happened to him isn't his fault, but in every interview he has talked about how bad he feels not being able to live up to his contract.

Yeah, there has been some mild interest from Toronto because he's Canadian and it will put butts in seats. But I can't see Toronto giving anything but a future 2nd round pick for him.

Agree the Lakers FO would have to swallow some pride to release him. I think they'd only do it to make cap room if they were going to get a good FA.

Yeah, Nash definitely is not sitting on the money, and he joined the Lakers largely for the opportunity to reach the NBA Finals and compete for a championship. Indeed, he is arguably the best NBA player to never play in a Finals.

... him or Dominique Wilkins, Bernard King, or Alex English, off the top of my head. The argument against those guys would be that they were primarily scorers. The argument against Nash would be that he never averaged as many as 9.0 assists or shot as high as .490 from the field until he entered Mike D'Antoni's offense after turning thirty.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah, Nash definitely is not sitting on the money, and he joined the Lakers largely for the opportunity to reach the NBA Finals and compete for a championship. Indeed, he is arguably the best NBA player to never play in a Finals.

... him or Dominique Wilkins, Bernard King, or Alex English, off the top of my head. The argument against those guys would be that they were primarily scorers. The argument against Nash would be that he never averaged as many as 9.0 assists or shot as high as .490 from the field until he entered Mike D'Antoni's offense after turning thirty.

Nash is a class act and has been one of my favorite players since he entered the league. I've wanted him to be a Laker for years. They finally get him and he just gets derailed with injury after injury.

 

[GMATCa]

Nash is a class act and has been one of my favorite players since he entered the league. I've wanted him to be a Laker for years. They finally get him and he just gets derailed with injury after injury.

Would you have wanted the Lakers to offer Andrew Bynum for Nash a year or two earlier?

I know, it probably wouldn't have happened, but ...

 

[GMATCa]

Again, given his history (he had only had 1 season where he missed a lot of time ) it was worth a risk for a season or two.

One season? Fine. But two seasons would be dicey, and the Lakers gave him three.

It wasn't necessarily about going completely uptempo right away. It was about having someone to distribute the ball more evenly to ease the burden on Kobe. It was about transitioning to something more uptempo with more ball movement. D'Antoni's offense isn't completely about "7 seconds or less". It's more about "move it or shoot it" and not letting the ball stagnate in one players hands. The young Nash was great for "7 seconds or less" this older Nash was still good for the "move it or shoot it" aspect.

As I indicated in my purple comments earlier, D'Antoni's offense is really about spacing, and the Lakers' personnel last season was not going to give Nash the spacing that he was accustomed to in Phoenix and that turned him into an all-time passer/shooter.

"Move it or shoot it"? Yeah, Nash can do that, but so can Steve Blake. If Nash is going to hurt you, rather than help you, defensively, especially by forcing Kobe Bryant to often guard Russell Westbrook, Tony Parker, and Chris Paul, then his "move it or shoot it" ability is not going to justify that contract. To "move it or shoot it," Jason Kidd could have worked for a year, too.

And the thing is, if Kobe is on the court, Kobe is going to dominate the ball. Thus you relieve his burden defensively, not offensively, the opposite of what the Lakers attempted.

Yes and no. The final season or 2 may have been overpriced to a point, but he would still be of value (and actually has been) as a mentor to the Lakers younger guards.

To me, that argument might work at half the price.

They may not have inked him to a 3 year deal, but he'd have gotten 2 (which is what I thought he should have gotten).

Yeah, actually, New York and Toronto both offered Nash three years at a little more money, so someone would have given him that kind of contract. But that's the fallacy of free agency: the bidding inflates the price to an unreasonable level, but you still can't say no ...

Free agency is good for the sport, don't get me wrong, but it constitutes a potential trap, too.