I don't get some of your thinking here.
Firstly I want to get out this out of the way. Nash has not been bad on defense this year. I see that he's trying hard out there. He's not very good at defense, but he's been decent.
Rondo isn't in the same league as Nash. Nash is catching up to him in the assists average without Allen, Pierce, and Garnett.
On Saturday before the Hornets game started his scoring average the previous few games was under 2 points. Elite? Right.
People complain about our defense being the problem, our offense has no fluidity either. Nash got to game 6 in the Eastern conference last year. Come on. Bashing Nash's defense is such a weak argument. People are just fooled by his age. These rising point guards are good and all, but aren't the same category as Nash. Watch a game from him. Tell me who else could do what he did except a healthy Chris Paul.
Rose is great because he knows he has to play an Iverson style PG. He's aggressive. Likes to pass, but knows he has to score a lot.
Stephen Curry's game, now that I see as being legit.
Am I saying to trade for Nash or anything? No, but which guards' defense really makes him more valuable than Nash? I like Felton, and his defense was much better than Nash's, but he got traded.
Nash has given people bigger contracts because of his play. He probably could get even Jeffries a basket or two more a game.
I don't think some of you even watch Nash. He had 23 points and 20 assists against the Lakers the other night. Who knows if the Suns would have won that game if Nash wasn't tired by the 3rd OT, which he did look.
Too much is focused on age. If this thread was about acquiring him, I'd only say at the right price. Grant Hill is 38 and gave Kobe a tough time. He sacrifices his scoring for great offensive opponents.
We have two young superstars and young players in their early 20s. Having more veteran leader leadership is much more valuable than having these rising stars who hasn't proven they deserve the praise they get.