Adrian Wojnarowski: "Last stand of the Suns"

[Andrew]

It's not actually the title of the article, but it's the underlying theme. Article @ Yahoo! NBA

Even though they've shaken things up with the Jason Richardson deal, the current Suns squad would seem to have an expiration date that's rapidly drawing nearer and may soon be at that crossroads where they have to decide whether they want to start over or try to make a couple of moves and squeeze success out of a roster that still has a couple of the current core players. It's interesting that the article mentions sources that claim Nash would be the only untouchable player. That's not to say Nash is a player that's easy to give up but convention would suggest that they'd go with youth (and size) in Amare over the older Nash. I think Nash could be like Stockton though, remaining effective into his late 30s if he plays that long and remaining a starter who plays fewer minutes while a younger point guard is groomed to be his successor.

Wojnarowski notes that the Suns are a game away from dropping out of the top nine but they're also a game and a half away from being able to move up a couple of spots, too. They're also seven games over .500 and 11 of their 18 losses have come in a competitive Western Conference. Their chances of seriously competing for the championship this year seem remote but I'm not sure they should look to make another big trade before the deadline unless it's an offer they can't refuse. The way Shaq is playing this year, letting him show he's still capable of being a significant player in the league and elevating his trade value while still trying to make a run this season might not be such a bad idea.

If they are going to make changes though, whenever that might be, I think they'd be better off keeping Nash and Amare. Both should be around longer than Shaq, Nash can be phased out while still remaining an effective starter and Amare should have the most years left of the three. If they're going to ever go back to a more uptempo style then they've also got to consider keeping Jason Richardson.

And if this is the "last stand"...well, they've had a decent run these past few years but it has been marred with disappointments with no titles to show for it, heartbreaking losses in the Western Conference Finals, a tough matchup with the Spurs last year that led to a first round exit and a 2006 season that could've been so much more if not for Amare's knee requiring surgery. That brings up another question though: is it better to be competitive for five or six years and have nothing to show for it, or have only a couple of good runs and end up with a championship before quickly falling into rebuilding mode again?

[Matthew]

I think their last stand was against San Antonio when Horry levelled Nash and the suspensions were handed out. They were never the same team after that mentally, and then of course the Shaq trade happened and now we see the effects of that with Amare's and Nash's value diminishing.

As for your question, I think its much better to win.Who do you think has had the better career so far? Amare, or Dwayne Wade? Amare has had longer, more consistent success but Wade has the ring. I would say Wade has had the better career.

[The X]

From an outsider's perspective, I would argue that it is better to have enduring success that Stockton & Malone had than one title & less overall success....

obviously the Wade to Amare comparison, you'd go with title....against Stockton or Malone, I'd go with the Stock/Malone, but they're more of a freak example, rather than the norm....

in the end, you'd have to ask the players....ask Stockton, ask Malone, ask Steve Nash, ask Nowitzki, ask Reggie Miller, Patrick Ewing....they're the only ones who can answer that question....

from my perspective when I'm playing, I obviously want to win every game & make the playoffs....I'm not sure if I'd trade making the playoffs every season, with a chance of stringing it together & winning it all for 2 good seasons with one getting a title & then getting clobbered by 20-30pts the next couple of years....

but from NBA perspective, with high turnover these days, & seeing what Boston's done, it's leaner towards fleeting success....

[Matthew]

Well of course you'd have to ask the players. But since we can't, I'm putting myself in their shoes and saying I'd rather have a career like Wades then Amare's.

But I am yet to hear one of those players you mentioned, the Malone's, Stocktons, Ewings etc say they are happier with their consistent production then winning a ring. If Wade comes out and says he'd rather be in Dirks or Amares position, then I'll concede my point.

[Andrew]

I too would have to go with more fleeting success than years of almost-but-not-quites. The ultimate goal in the NBA and any pro sport is to win championships/tournaments etc and if a team has a chance to be a prime contender for the championship for a couple of years, it's better than ten years of maybes and coming up short season after season.

Of course, it is impressive when players like Stockton and Malone combine to carry their team to very respectable performances for over a decade and history does remember them kindly despite never winning a ring but when it comes to the philosophy of the front office, I think they have to go for opportunities that increase their chances in the short run and let them start over in a couple of years if it doesn't work out instead of muddling away with a team that is built to win 50, 60 games and reach the Conference Finals but never gets any further.

That's not to say they should be too impatient or trade away core players; if the Jazz had traded Stockton and/or Malone in the early 90s I don't think they'd have come as close to winning a title as they did with the back-to-back Finals appearances in 97 and 98. However, they did shape the team around them and make changes as the decade progressed, so I wouldn't say they were satisfied with simply being a contender every year.