Doc Brown wrote:1.) Nash would be finishing the games.
2.) He went to Toronto because he got traded there, not for a big contract.
3.) He's making 6 million and doesn't even have a guaranteed deal next year.
4.) Toronto would give us Calderon before Lowry if anything.
1. If the Lakers have a lead, no matter how slim, against teams with PGs like Tony Parker, CP3, Curry, Westbrook, or Lawson, why would our worst defender be out there to guard them, or left to guard much bigger SG and SFs, or force Kobe to kill himself all season defending PGs, when Lowry can do it and do it very well, while also not losing much (if anything at all) on the offensive side when we get stops? I don't think Nash would be finishing all games or that he needs or wants anything more than 30 mins a game (max).
2. Right. So he likely wants out of that country and to play with a contender.
3. Ok. Thought his deal was through next year. But either way, whether he is a one year rental or not, we need him for this year's run (if there is to be one). Regardless of what Nash signed for in the summer, it is obvious that he has lost steps, will lose more, and the MOST IMPORTANT position we have to fill to compete against SAS, OKC, Clips, Den, etc. is a fast, defending, gritty PG who can finish, hit 3s, and mesh with our other guys in pick and roll sets. So even if the Lakers have to pay another $6 to $8 million for a back up PG, it is worth it. No? [See first 30 games without Nash and Blake].
4. Why? They are faced with losing both for nothing and Lowry doesn't want to be there, and Jose has been playing just as well. Since they want to deal one or the other AND link that one to Bargnani's trash, if it is for Gasol doesn't keeping Jose make more sense for next season? Anyway -- in short, spending more for a solid backup PG who can lead the bench in scoring, defend, and mesh with the starters is worth it. IMO