Nash Wins MVP

[westkoast]

Bah see previous page...

[JoMal]

Please Skander, Shaq didn't even give 75% and no, I'm not some delusional little idealist who thinks players give 100% because they signed a contract, but Shaq's last 3 years were beyond the pale in terms of conditioning and lack of effort, to the point IMO at least last season of sabotage. And since when did Shaq ever really mean what he said?  Sounds like you're living in a dream world.

Sabotage is a strong word to use, but if you want to go there, you just have to ask why. Why was he so angry with the Lakers that he would not get in shape, not take care of injuries, then humiliate the team by shouting out his salary demands then forcing a trade?  Even delusional Laker fans have to see that is the reaction of someone royally pissed off at something or someone.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that most of us have probably been in work situations, where we are earning a salary of some sort, feeding our families, putting a roof over their heads and all of that, but something at work that went against us just put us at complete odds with those who were paying our salaries. As a recourse, our options are limited. We often just have to put up with the problem.

OR, we quit. Looks to me like Shaq just wanted to quit the Laker organization, but you can't just fire a guy like Shaq, or let him walk away either. Whatever the Lakers were doing was not making him happy and apparently was not going to change either, so Shaq reacted in a way that would show the Laker management he was not going to earn the money they were paying him anyway.

The Phil Jackson thing was not the catalyst to Shaq's feelings about the Lakers - it was just the final straw. From all of those media sources you cite WC, you might glean the little fact that the face of the Lakers that management coveted was Kobe's, at a time when Shaq clearly felt it should be him.

Sort of like getting passed over for a big promotion by a co-worker who clamped onto your ideas but looked better telling management about them. Shaq responded to these things like just about anyone with any pride at all would have. If that is so hard to understand, more power to you in the real world of hard knocks.

[westkoast]

Sort of like getting passed over for a big promotion by a co-worker who clamped onto your ideas but looked better telling management about them. Shaq responded to these things like just about anyone with any pride at all would have. If that is so hard to understand, more power to you in the real world of hard knocks.

See that promotion example would work if Shaq was doing work above and beyond what he was suppose to do and Kobe wasnt doing anything.  Not working out in the offseason, insulting your boss in front of 20k, and putting off surgery that effected the whole team cancels out the example of some other co-worker getting a raise when he should.  I dont get raises for doing less and less of what I should be doing for 3 solid years.  Do you???  If so put a word in for me.  What Kobe has is youth over Shaq and a better work ethic...which means he will be able to play alot longer.  That matters when you are thinking for the future, which is what the Lakers were doing.

Sure anyone with pride would be mad.  The problem is Shaq is so full of himself he cant admit to the things he did wrong that led up to this.  Ever hear Shaq respond about conditioning? He gets defensive but wont admit he should have been doing it.

"Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that most of us have probably been in work situations, where we are earning a salary of some sort, feeding our families, putting a roof over their heads and all of that, but something at work that went against us just put us at complete odds with those who were paying our salaries. But unlikely us, we have to often just put up with the problem."

Difference?  Making problems for yourself in the first place.  While not everything is Shaq's fault, he did start problems of his own.   Now correct me if I am wrong but if you were at a confrence in front of a group of people and someone under you yelled out 'PAY ME MY F%$#N MONEY' and pointed at you what would you do?  Certainly in the real world with Hard Knocks JoMaL's underling would get fired or there would be some serious bad blood.

[JoMal]

Umm.

And all of that would have made more sense if Shaq started doing all of his shenanigans BEFORE the Lakers won anything with him on the team and not after the Lakers made their decision to focus on Kobe instead.  

[westkoast]

Umm.

And all of that would have made more sense if Shaq started doing all of his shenanigans BEFORE the Lakers won anything with him on the team and not after the Lakers made their decision to focus on Kobe instead.

Uhhhh.

Shaq did the 'PAY ME MY F#@$@Kin MONEY' during the begging of last season.  Before any of this Kobe/PJ talk.

The conditioning thing and the comment about surgery was also prior to last season...so again these 'shenanigans' happend long before the decided to go with Kobe instead of him.

As for bad mouthing teams, organizations.....he did that in Orlando and thats why he bolted to LA.

[JoMal]

No, westkoast, Shaq had a burr up his butt long before any of the Kobe/Jackson issues came up before his last Laker season. That was just when he started the "show me the money" and "show me the door" stuff.  

[Joe Vancil]

Mark me down as a person who thinks NASH should be the MVP.  The MVP is about results versus expectations.  You can surround some people with All-Star talent, and they underachieve.  I also agree with Charles Barkley when he said that if you didn't have Nash and Shaq as #1 and #2 on your ballot, in either order, you were stupid.

Picking on Skander here, but why do you consider Bill Russell the greatest player in history (the same as I do)?  After all, he was surrounded by Hall-Of-Fame players.  Did he ever play on ANY team where there weren't at least 2, if not 3, other Hall Of Fame players?  

I liken this to Nash's situation.  Yes, he had Stoudemire and Marion, but so did Marbury, and he did nothing with them.  In a very limited time, so did the #2 guy in assists this year - Brevin Knight...he played point for Phoenix last year, and they found him unusable.  Nash was the chemistry player to put it all together.

As for Shaq's attitude, the fact that you don't know how much of what he's got that he's giving you is a big part of the reason he's not won any more MVP awards than he has.  In other words, if Shaq had worked his rear off every season, he'd have more MVP awards.  He gave the Lakers only what he felt they needed, argued with his coach about where his weight should be, took time off during seasons, and essentially did everything he could to contribute to the "flip-the-switch" mentality of the Lakers.  If he had the work ethic of a Duncan or a Garnett, Kobe would have had a lot less to complain about (although, I believe Bryant would have found SOMETHING to complain about).  In typical Shaq fashion, O'Neal did everything he could to avoid blaming himself for anything.

Ask yourself if a player who is supremely talented, but only plays at 70% deserves an MVP trophy.  I don't think so - especially when there are people who put a lot more into the year and got out comparable - if not better - results...especially in the win column.

When Iverson won his MVP, no one questioned whether or not he was deserving.  No one would have confused him with the best player in the league.  No one would have selected him as their "best" player over Duncan, Garnett, or O'Neal.  There would be arguable case for him not even being the best at his position.  Yet because Philadelphia did more than anyone expected Philadelphia to be able to do, Iverson was the clear choice for the MVP winner.  Philadelphia overachieved, and Iverson was the reason.

Phoenix overachieved, and Nash was the reason.  

As for the reason Shaq bolted from Orlando, Orlando did something really, really stupid - they told their player to see what he could get on the free agent market and then come back to them.  If Orlando had said, "Hey, big guy, let's get this deal hammered out right now," Shaq would have still been a member of the Magic.  When the Magic tried to pinch pennies, they dropped quarters.  When you've got an O'Neal, you don't tell him to find out what he's worth, you start by asking him what he wants, and you negotiate from there.  Given that this was before the days of the salary cap, it's absolutely brain-dead to do what Orlando did.

While Shaq is a lot more likeable than Kobe, his work ethic ISN'T.  In fact, it's mostly deplorable.  And that very thing is part of why you look at Shaq and wonder:  What should Shaq have averaged this year?  Is he a 22.9 and 10.4 player, or is he a 27 and 12 player who just gave it 22.9 and 10.4 effort?  I believe the latter.  I believe that the Laker management came to expect that he'd be the latter - if even that.

I don't agree that Shaq quit on the Lakers.  I believe that that's the way Shaq has always been...a guy who only does what he feels that he needs to do.  Consider this:  his best season was the season when he had the fewest possible excuses that he could use:  he had a top-notch coach, he had two All-Stars in the starting line-up with him with the other two guys being A.C. Green and Ron Harper, both of whom wore rings, he was being challenged for the title of "best player on the team" by Bryant, who was coming on strong as a fan favorite and media darling, his main divisional competition had been effectively dismantled by the previous champion in a 4 game sweep, his team was one of the favorites to win the conference despite the fact that they had yet to win the DIVISION in O'Neal's stay there.  In other words, it was "put-up or shut-up" time for Shaq.  And he's yet to give that kind of effort again...and the closest we've seen is this year in Miami - when he's felt the need to justify his position on the problems with the Lakers.

 

[westkoast]

Mark me down as a person who thinks NASH should be the MVP.  The MVP is about results versus expectations.  You can surround some people with All-Star talent, and they underachieve.  I also agree with Charles Barkley when he said that if you didn't have Nash and Shaq as #1 and #2 on your ballot, in either order, you were stupid.

Picking on Skander here, but why do you consider Bill Russell the greatest player in history (the same as I do)?  After all, he was surrounded by Hall-Of-Fame players.  Did he ever play on ANY team where there weren't at least 2, if not 3, other Hall Of Fame players?  

I liken this to Nash's situation.  Yes, he had Stoudemire and Marion, but so did Marbury, and he did nothing with them.  In a very limited time, so did the #2 guy in assists this year - Brevin Knight...he played point for Phoenix last year, and they found him unusable.  Nash was the chemistry player to put it all together.

As for Shaq's attitude, the fact that you don't know how much of what he's got that he's giving you is a big part of the reason he's not won any more MVP awards than he has.  In other words, if Shaq had worked his rear off every season, he'd have more MVP awards.  He gave the Lakers only what he felt they needed, argued with his coach about where his weight should be, took time off during seasons, and essentially did everything he could to contribute to the "flip-the-switch" mentality of the Lakers.  If he had the work ethic of a Duncan or a Garnett, Kobe would have had a lot less to complain about (although, I believe Bryant would have found SOMETHING to complain about).  In typical Shaq fashion, O'Neal did everything he could to avoid blaming himself for anything.

Ask yourself if a player who is supremely talented, but only plays at 70% deserves an MVP trophy.  I don't think so - especially when there are people who put a lot more into the year and got out comparable - if not better - results...especially in the win column.

When Iverson won his MVP, no one questioned whether or not he was deserving.  No one would have confused him with the best player in the league.  No one would have selected him as their "best" player over Duncan, Garnett, or O'Neal.  There would be arguable case for him not even being the best at his position.  Yet because Philadelphia did more than anyone expected Philadelphia to be able to do, Iverson was the clear choice for the MVP winner.  Philadelphia overachieved, and Iverson was the reason.

Phoenix overachieved, and Nash was the reason.  

As for the reason Shaq bolted from Orlando, Orlando did something really, really stupid - they told their player to see what he could get on the free agent market and then come back to them.  If Orlando had said, "Hey, big guy, let's get this deal hammered out right now," Shaq would have still been a member of the Magic.  When the Magic tried to pinch pennies, they dropped quarters.  When you've got an O'Neal, you don't tell him to find out what he's worth, you start by asking him what he wants, and you negotiate from there.  Given that this was before the days of the salary cap, it's absolutely brain-dead to do what Orlando did.

While Shaq is a lot more likeable than Kobe, his work ethic ISN'T.  In fact, it's mostly deplorable.  And that very thing is part of why you look at Shaq and wonder:  What should Shaq have averaged this year?  Is he a 22.9 and 10.4 player, or is he a 27 and 12 player who just gave it 22.9 and 10.4 effort?  I believe the latter.  I believe that the Laker management came to expect that he'd be the latter - if even that.

I don't agree that Shaq quit on the Lakers.  I believe that that's the way Shaq has always been...a guy who only does what he feels that he needs to do.  Consider this:  his best season was the season when he had the fewest possible excuses that he could use:  he had a top-notch coach, he had two All-Stars in the starting line-up with him with the other two guys being A.C. Green and Ron Harper, both of whom wore rings, he was being challenged for the title of "best player on the team" by Bryant, who was coming on strong as a fan favorite and media darling, his main divisional competition had been effectively dismantled by the previous champion in a 4 game sweep, his team was one of the favorites to win the conference despite the fact that they had yet to win the DIVISION in O'Neal's stay there.  In other words, it was "put-up or shut-up" time for Shaq.  And he's yet to give that kind of effort again...and the closest we've seen is this year in Miami - when he's felt the need to justify his position on the problems with the Lakers.

Great post Ted...maybe you should try to post here more often?

[Joe Vancil]

TED?  

Don't try to tell me "All you Utah fans look alike!"

It's Joe.  Or I might answer by "Genghis," if you're lucky.  And if you were one of my high-school friends, I might even answer to "Kid."  But I do insist on you using either my name, or one of the various nicknames I answer to.

 

[Guest]

TED?  

Don't try to tell me "All you Utah fans look alike!"

It's Joe.  Or I might answer by "Genghis," if you're lucky.  And if you were one of my high-school friends, I might even answer to "Kid."  But I do insist on you using either my name, or one of the various nicknames I answer to.

 :nonono:

Looks like that one flew a little high for you Joe.

[westkoast]

TED? 

Don't try to tell me "All you Utah fans look alike!"

It's Joe.  Or I might answer by "Genghis," if you're lucky.  And if you were one of my high-school friends, I might even answer to "Kid."  But I do insist on you using either my name, or one of the various nicknames I answer to.

:nonono:

Looks like that one flew a little high for you Joe.

^---thats me

Shaq DNP tonight and Miami still sticks it to the Wizards....hmm.  I dont know Diesel trucks that get knocked off the road because of a dent in the side.

[Skandery]

Picking on Skander here, but why do you consider Bill Russell the greatest player in history (the same as I do)? After all, he was surrounded by Hall-Of-Fame players. Did he ever play on ANY team where there weren't at least 2, if not 3, other Hall Of Fame players?

Bill Russell didn't play with Hall of Famers, Bill Russell turned role players into Hall of Famers.  Everyone on that team was a better player because of Bill Russell, they won games because of Bill Russell, and they won championship after championship because of Bill Russell.

Nash's teammates become somewhat better players, they win games because of Nash, but they tend to fall flat on their face when push comes to shove and its put up or shut up time.

Big Difference.

When Iverson won his MVP, no one questioned whether or not he was deserving. No one would have confused him with the best player in the league. No one would have selected him as their "best" player over Duncan, Garnett, or O'Neal. There would be arguable case for him not even being the best at his position. Yet because Philadelphia did more than anyone expected Philadelphia to be able to do, Iverson was the clear choice for the MVP winner. Philadelphia overachieved, and Iverson was the reason.

As for Iverson in 2001, it could definitely be argued that he was the best player that year.  He was the leader in scoring, the leader in steals, among the elite in assists, among the leaders in minutes.  The team thrived on what he did and how he did it on BOTH sides of the court.  

With Nash this year, okay he was the leader in assists and.........??  It's good thing he is a talented shooter to make up for his absolute horrid defense.  Actually its not horrid, its detestable.  An utter refusal to put the effort into learning such monumental undertaking: the defensive slide.  I mean Stockton at 6'1, 180 is the all-time leader in steals in NBA history.  Nash at 6'3, ~190 is perhaps one of the worst starting pg's defensively.

He gave the Lakers only what he felt they needed, argued with his coach about where his weight should be, took time off during seasons, and essentially did everything he could to contribute to the "flip-the-switch" mentality of the Lakers. If he had the work ethic of a Duncan or a Garnett, Kobe would have had a lot less to complain about (although, I believe Bryant would have found SOMETHING to complain about).

Jordan had that same mentality, especially in the 95 through 98 years.  Flip the switch in the fourth quarter and win the game.  I wonder how many games Utah lead in the 4th quarter in those two Finals, just to lose when Jordan decided to "flip the switch."  Not only did people not bash Jordan for that, they heralded him as the greatest clutch player of all time and gave him MVP after MVP.  Not to say he didn't deserve it.  Just to say that there is something to be said for working hard and working smart.  

I refuse to believe that everytime someone beat the Lakers, it was because Shaq wasn't trying.  The old "Shaq is soooooo good that if he ever gave it all he's got, no one would beat his team, ever, never!!"  When the Lakers got beat it was because the other team was the BETTER team.  And the blame for the Lakers loss falls squarely on the shoulders of the Lakers as a whole.  Not just Shaq, but Kobe, Malone, Payton, George, Rush, Slava, Fisher, Phil Jackson, etc.  Basketball is a *team* game, when the *team* loses, the *team* is to blame.  Shaq being the best player on that team has to swallow a good share of that blame, but by no means should he swallow all of it.  After all, the team had three other Hall of Famers, right??  

   

[Ted]

Looks like that one flew a little high for you Joe.

That flew right over my head, too.  :unsure:  

[jn]

Whoa now... John Havlicek and Bob Cousy were role players?    

[guest-koast]

Skander,

While it wasnt always Shaq's fault it did make a difference when he tried and didnt.  When Shaq tries you see what his teams look like....like say the playoffs when the Lakers went 15-1.  When he didnt try as hard you saw an early exit to the Spurs in the 2nd round.  So while its not 'if shaq tried his teams would never ever lose' its more like 'if Shaq gave the same effort Iverson, Kobe, KG, Duncan, and the likes give each night then his team would win a hell of alot''  When arguably the best player in the game at the time decides not to give 100% it shows.  Any Laker fan will tell you the same thing, there were times when Shaq chose not to dominate the game and the Lakers suffered.  Was every loss Shaq's fault? No, not at all.  Losing to the Grizz because you were out rebounded by 15 says something about how much of an impact he had.   Especially when you know he is capable of taking every single rebound away from Pau Gasol.  

The difference between motivated I want to play Shaq and the ehh I dont feel like it today Shaq is like night and day.  Look at Shaq two years ago when Kobe put the Lakers on his back and look at the Shaq you saw mid-season this year.  Two completely different players.

Ted/Joe do I really need to explain it?