Let's start with Jack McCallum piece at SI entitled "Making sense of Marion's complicated situation". It's a very helpful article to read. Not because McCallum is on to something; nah, it's the "reading between the lines" that makes it useful. His article gives us an inside view of the Suns' management point of view.
See, Jack McCallum made his career on his book 7 Seconds or Less, about the Suns 2005-2006 season. He got some great insider access from the team. The result is he's sort of a tool for management now. So when you read his "opinion", his "attempt to clarify", read between the lines.
So Marion is supposedly upset with the Suns because of his name being in trade rumors? Like he hasn't been rumored a part of trades for years now? That's why he wants to get traded? Because he's tired of being rumored to be traded? Anyone else find that logic a bit odd?
So Marion is a liar when he says the Suns unwillingness to extend his contract is only "part of why" he wants out? In other words, McCallum is trying to say it's all about the money with Marion. Which makes no sense to me, either, because if it is about the money, then why he is threatening to opt out of his contract, which is probably paying higher than whatever he would get as a free agent?
And of course he's not underrated. The Suns know exactly what he's worth, right Jack? In fact, Jack subtly implies Marion is becoming overrated, if anything.
He's not a legit MVP candidate, huh Jack? Because he's not Jason Kidd?!? He should be grateful to be "an All-Star on a contending team" we learn.
And he's a choker, too, according to Jack.
He then throws Marion a bone, and points out that he's over-criticized. Even though he's overrated, right? McCallum then points out that it's because D'Antoni "expects so much from him". And that Nash's defensive liabilities "don't come from a lack of effort". Wha? What do they come from? Defense is all effort!
Anyway, he goes on to point out that tougher players like Barbosa and Bell can take criticism, but Marion "takes pointed criticism personally". He's a wuss. Thanks for the insight, Jack.
And McCallum finishes off his post by pointing out that the Suns won't be a better team without Marion, but they should trade him anyway. Why?!?
******
Again, the only value of the McCallum article is to see what the Suns management truly thinks of Marion, or at least how they want to portray him in the media. They are portraying him as whiny, sensitive, and full of himself. The majority of articles/posts on the trade speculation that have been written have taken to portraying Marion as a jealous or ego-driven player who can't take being second or third-best to Amare and Nash anymore. Few have delved into whether or not he should.
*****
Here's what I don't understand about the coverage of this trade demand by the MSM: Simmons writes that Marion is "the best defensive player in the league". He also agrees, like McCallum above, that "nobody (the Suns) could acquire in a trade would be a better fit for the Suns than Shawn Marion." Yet he also calls him "the second-most indispensable player on the team".
This is a sneaky way of avoiding the "who are the best players on the Suns" argument, because you have to agree Amare is better, right? So the discussion instead is "who is most indispensable". Fine.
If he's the best defensive player, and the Suns are unable to get a fair value for him in a trade... isn't he really the most indispensable player on the team? Or, put it anyway: We know they can't get a replacement for Marion, and the best they can hope for is Kirilenko, an equally-mopey player who can fill maybe 75% of Marion's role (at best), and costs as much money, but for longer (a contract that runs twice as long as Marion's). But could the Suns get fair value for Steve Nash?
******
We're not going to speculate on what the Suns could get for Nash that would constitute fair value. There is clearly a larger market for a squeeky-clean point guard, two time MVP, with a reasonable salary and contract. In fact, pretty much anyone in the league could be had for Nash, save for Duncan and LeBron. Or close to it, anyway.
If there was a real possibility of Nash getting traded, we would argue about who they should get to take his place. But it's not worth discussing in this situation.
******
Plissken at the Buzzer has a great post about Steve Nash's style of game, and how it might make some players seem like nothing more than finishers (for example, Marion). Ty Keenan also delves into whether the media perception of Nash (the ball-licking) matches the perception among NBA players, as we now have an example of a teammate of Nash openly lobbying to be traded away from Nash, to play with Kobe!
I added a few comments of my own, which might help with the point of this post (and there are lots of quality comments on Ty's post, including a few responses to mine, so check them out):
I'll add my thoughts on why I think Marion might want to move on, away from Nash. First off, we're assuming that's why he wants to leave, right? It's not the money (no one else would give him more), it's not that he wants to leave to go to a "better" team - who is better, besides the Spurs? The Rockets? The Cavs? The Mavs?
No, we assume he's leaving because he's tired of being in Nash's shadow, right?
Okay, now about that shadow... when Nash got here, Marion was an All-Star, and the star of the team (well, the PGs were, but Kidd/Marbury were both gone by the time Nash got there). Nash was not an All-Star, much less an MVP. Dig that?
[Editor's Note: Nash was an All-Star. Twice. We'll get to that correction in a bit]
Nash was let go by the Mavs so they could get Jason Terry. And most "experts" - the media, the writers, other GMs - thought that was a good move. I think Nash was taken in the 6th round of my Fantasy draft that season, long after Terry (and a bunch of other so-so PGs). Just reminding ya'll how it was, that's all. Because I'm sure Marion remembers.
Then the Suns blow up, and Nash gets all the credit. There was some debate that first season - people, including me, argued that Amare was the "real" MVP, not Nash. But then Amare went down, and the team kept chugging along splendidly, shutting guys like me up. Nash proved he was the man, not Amare.
And nobody talked about Marion. The guy whose defense and rebounding allowed those fact breaks to occur. The guy who cleaned up Nash's horrible defensive lapses. The guy who ability to sky made the other half of those beautiful alley-oops from Nash work, and the guy who set the picks, did what he was suppose to do in the system, and hit those open threes.
If The System, and D'Antonio, got most of the credit (they certainly get some of the credit), maybe Marion wouldn't care. But two MVPs and loads of media jocking on Nash, and the fact that almost all the credit goes to Nash... that's the shadow that Marion has had enough of.
I don't know if I agree that's a good excuse or not for Marion to demand a trade, but I do think that has to be a big factor in why he's demanding a trade....
Later on, in response to some criticism, I added this comment:
Anon 1:49: You are right, Nash did make the All-Star game. Twice. He was a
backup, to Steve Francis. In his second appearance, Nash played 15 minutes in a
double-OT game, and had 2 points and 3 assists.
Even Gary Payton (in his Laker days) got more burn than Nash that All-Star game. He didn't even make the 2004 All-Star game, with Sam Cassell taking his spot, along with Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant, Steve Francis as the other guards. That despite having one of his best seasons in Dallas - a career-high 8.8 apg at the time, plus 14.5 ppg.
The Nash/Dirk duo was
considered one of the best? Yes, it was. You know who was considered the better
player in that duo? Dirk. Not Nash. Is the Nash/Marion duo considered one of the
best in the league? And if it is, is Marion considered the better player, or
Nash?
Nash's stock has risen astronomically over the last three years.
Cuban didn't "lose" Nash... Nash himself has said that he wanted to stay in
Dallas. Cuban offered 4 years, $9 million per, with an option for a fifth.
That's it. His only competition was Phoenix, who went 6 years guaranteed (at $10
million per). Ask yourself this: If Nash was so good, why was he getting
marginally money for an All-Star? How much were guys like Mike Bibby (who took
Nash's "spot" on the 2004 team, since Nash didn't make it) signing for?
Yeah, you're right... me and my buds didn't know much back in that
fantasy draft. Neither did any other "experts", though. He went - and I forget
if it was the 4th, 5th or 6th round - as late as he went because that is where
he's value was projected. Yahoo had him ranked behind Terry, Bibby, Francis,
Marbury, Baron Davis, etc. That's not because we "didn't know enough about
basketball", that's how Nash was perceived, talent-wise, at the time.
Shawn Marion is a very talented player. So, too, is Steve Nash, with all his MVPs and raves from the media. This isn't about who is better. If anything, I think it comes down to proving who really needs who... Nash has in the past soothed Marion's egos at times like this. Obviously he's done with it. Marion, meanwhile, must feel like Nash wasn't sh*t until Nash teamed up with him. That doesn't mean I agree with Marion; I'm just trying to understand his perspective a bit. I think he really feels like he's had more to do with the team's, and therefore Nash's, success, then anyone else. And by forcing a trade, once the Suns collapse without him (a genuine possibility), he'll get the credit for it.
It's not just about Nash, either. On a team with no defense and no depth, Marion has provided plenty of both. He routinely makes up for the "defensive lapses" (laziness) of his teammates. His rebounding allows all those fast breaks to happen, and allows the team to play as small as it does. His heavy minutes, and iron man-like health, allows the team to play the entire season running and gunning while having a limited bench. His ability to play multiple positions... also a huge asset to the team. While the team has done well to sign him to a big contract, it's PR and marketing has focused credit on everyone else - Nash, Amare, D'Antoni, even Barbosa - more so than Marion. And now he wants to show who makes the show really go. Personally, I hope he gets a chance. Because the Suns, as currently constituted, aren't ever going to make the leap anyway. So let's see if Marion was right all along....
Leave a comment
|
12 Comments
Comments
Sorry, SML, Marion has had attitude problems for a while. I remember he did an interview with SLAM last year, and he was having an attitude then. He has a permanent chip on his shoulder, and it has turned to be against his own team. Man needs to play for another team rather than Phoenix; he's been in the desert too long.
Great post SML...I really enjoyed it
I do think that Marion has kinda gotten a raw deal, but I also think he's letting that cloud his jusgement. For the most part, professional athletes are very egotistical people, and for good reason. They are ridiculously talented and rich, they date beautiful women, and are adored by millions of people. There are very very few people on the planet who can do the things they do, both on the court and in their personal/social lives. They've been getting their egos pumped up by friends, family, scouts, fans, etc. probably since they were in junior high. And now all of a sudden they're supposed to play second or third fiddle once they get to the pros? "Fuck that!" is what many of them are thinking, especially those that are still very good pros.
A select few can willingly accept playing second fiddle, like David Robinson did with Duncan or what Shaq is doing with Wade now, or even Marbury deferring to Eddy Curry. But many of them cant accept the fact that they're not the best, or cant accept the fact that somebody else would think that they are second best. Ultra-competitive athletes dont just want to be the best, they need people to know that they are the best
I obviously dont know Marion personally, but from an outsider's point of view it seems like this is what he's going through. And now he wants to leave Phoenix so that he can be "appreciated", but it could end up being a bad choice down the road, if he ends up meshing poorly with his new team
I agree with ya'll in that Marion has an attitude. That's not really the issue. Like Tom aluded to, all athletes have to have an ego and an attitude. It's how you become good enough to be the best 0.1% in your field.
Now, the question I was trying to frame here is more of "why does Marion have an attitude that's leading to his trade request?". The way I look at it, all athletes have egos, but some (like Tom wrote) know how to defer to the team. In fact, most athlete's do. Shawn Marion isn't any different.
Hell, if anything I think he's not bitching enough! If I had a team that could win the title, but the players, the so-called stars of the team, were just too damn lazy to play good defense when it counts so we could win the damn title... sh*t, I'll be flipping out after every damn game. I'll be in the locker room screaming at Steve Nash like "how many times you gonna let that cat Tony Parker look like Isiah Thomas or something?!?"
Anyway, my point Marion is clearly fed up with something, and the this was my attempt to answer what he's fed up with.
Also, one more question that needs to be asked: "Is he really making a bad choice here?"
See, in my opinion, Marion knows this team ain't winning a title. The star players are too lazy to play the defense needed to win a title, the coach doesn't care enough about defense, and the management is too damn cheap (a big factor). They won't sign or trade for the needed help (especially on the bench), and they keep giving away draft picks that could help them out, just to save money.
So his choice is stay on a winning regular season team that can't win a championship, and be third-fiddle, or jump ship. The fact that he openly said "I want to play with Kobe in LA" means he's willing to be a second banana! He acknowledges his shortcomings, and is willing to defer to a superior player, because he knows if the Lakers become a legit contender with his presence, everyone will know that it's because of Kobe/Marion (a.k.a. Jordan/Pippen II) as a duo. Even if it's pretty clear that Kobe is the superior talent, Marion will get credit (like Pippen does) for being the player who did everything that needed to be done to make the team work. In Phoenix, it's just kinda said outloud a lot that Marion is important, but not really treated that way. The press fawns over Nash and Amare and even Barbosa, and Marion gets overlooked. Period.
Bottom line: The Suns need Marion more than he needs them, and he knows it.
Also: Put Marion on the Knicks. Put him on the Bulls at PF. Put him on the Heat. The Cavs. The Lakers. Almost any decent team becomes a legit contender with his presence. Think about it....
Good observation, SML, about the Suns needing Marion more than he needs them. Also right on about the Suns just not playing up to winning a title.
But don't put him on the Knicks! THen he'll immediately become an overpaid underachiever like the rest of the team.
Nice post, SML -- expands on some of the admittedly narrow points I made quite well.
The "is he making a bad choice?" question is really interesting. Although he's a perfect fit for what the Suns ask him to do, I also think they neglect to exploit some other parts of his game -- an anonymous commenter who signed "Ignarus" made this point really well in the comments to my post. The issue to look into then becomes one of whether or not his new team would allow him to do everything he's capable of doing. That's difficult to answer given that the Suns haven't drawn anything up for Marion recently -- maybe it's even impossible to know. (Note: this is why, apart from my lifelong fandom, I like the Warriors so damn much. They actually let players define their roles.)
All great points SML.
One thing I kinda disagree with though is the idea that there is a difference between winning regular season teams and winning postseason teams. I think is a good team is a good team is a good team, regardless of the month of the calendar.
I usually get funny looks when I say this to people, but bear with me: The playoffs are overrated.
In the playoffs, you generally get match-ups of evenly matched teams, except like the #1-#8 and #2-#7 series. Let's say, for instance, the 61-win Suns team is playing the 58-win Spurs team. Let's say instead of a 7-game series, it was a 100-game series. You might end up with something like 52 wins for the Suns and 48 wins for the Spurs, since they're so close in talent level. But within those 100 games, there will be stretches of 7 games where the Spurs win 4 games of those 7. In fact, there will be many of these stretches. So, even though the Suns are the "better" team, the chances of the Spurs winning a 7-game series against them are pretty high. About 45%, actually. Now multiply that by 4 series required to win the title...and the 61-win Suns team is only about a 10% chance to win it all. You wanna give them some additional credit for playing a crummy team in the first and maybe second rounds...let's say 15% instead.
and there's plenty of things that can derail the team. An injury. Bad calls by the refs. Bad luck. Suspensions for petty offenses. Any of these things can cause a "better" team to lose a 7-game series. So, just because a team hasnt won yet, doesnt mean there is something inherently flawed about them.
Over the course of an 82-game season, however, the luck and the bad calls and stuff evens out, and you get a clearer indication of how good each team is, instead of making a team win a bunch of short series (Is the plural of series "series" or "serieses?)
Why have the playoffs then? Because it's fun, and it draws ratings, additional ticket and ad revenue, etc. I dont think it adds any additional element of "fairness" to the league. I know a lot of people probably disagree with me, but thats my belief...
That said, the comment about management being cheap is most certainly a legitimate reason for someone not to look favorably upon the future of the franchise. And if Marion thinks management will not commit the financial resources to improve the team's chances, then he has the right to go elsewhere. well, if he's a free agent or he's traded.
Tom, that's an excellent point. I mean, it is a little off topic, but I agree with you, and think it isn't discussed enough. It's a very worthy discussion.
I think where we differ slightly is that I perceive that there can be a difference in quality of two teams with similar records, namely the Spurs and the Suns:
So, just because a team hasnt won yet, doesnt mean there is something inherently flawed about them
The Suns can't win, in my opinion. I think that some teams can be built for the regular season, but not for the postseason. Or managed/coached that way.
Example 1: This year's Detroit Tiger team was built for the playoffs, but not the regular season. They lacked depth, and injuries (particularly the one to Sheffield) derail the team. If they had some depth - Carlos Pena, yo - they might have made the playoffs.
Adjustments by coaches in playoffs make a difference, too. I mean, in a seven-game series, the tiniest difference can swing the series. Like you said, a ref's call, untimely injuries, etc.
But in football, where it is just a one-game series... that's where things get more random. People beat us over the head with Marty Schottermiener's (sp?) poor postseason record, but you talk about bad breaks. A fumble by Ernest Byner? The Drive? He gets beat up a lot for something that, honestly, is just a culmination of some bad luck.
I'm starting to come around to the idea that the Suns won't win (or, maybe more accurately, won't beat the Spurs) because of how D'Antoni handles them.
As for other sports, I actually feel like the team I'd call "better" wins more often in the NFL playoffs than in any other sport. Baseball seems the most random to me, although I'm not of the Billy Beane crapshoot philosophy on that one.
Also, the first line of my last comment is a bit ambiguous. I meant that you expanded quite well.
You made a lot of good points. However, the season before Nash came to the Suns was actually one his worst from a points standpoint and was the first time the Mavs had lost in the first round in four years, if I'm not mistaken. Remember, the Suns were looked at askance for offering $60 million to a point guard with recurring back problems. In addition, the Mavs have had good success since Nash left the team, despite almost complete retooling around Dirk. I"ve never understood how people can point to the Suns poor record when Nash is injured as proof of how great he is, yet ignore the fact that the team he left has had success without him. Also, that logic ignores the fact that the Suns currently do not have a single pass first point guard outside of Nash, which means that when he is out they are counting on Barbosa and Banks to run a team that is focused on a pass first point guard.
And, to tack on to Allen's great comment a bit: The Suns need Nash because they haven't adequately backed up for him... they should have signed a Brevin Knight or Steve Blake type just to run the offense for 10-15 minutes a night, and give Steve Nash a break. That's just the cheapness of the Suns, I guess.
But the Suns need Marion because they can't adequately back him up. There's no one in the league that can fill that role for them at that level. That's why if he misses an extend amount of games, you'll see how that impacts the team.
Or maybe it won't slow the Suns down, and we'll find out that Marion was actually overrated. That's one way to find out... throughout the Nash Suns era, we haven't seen what they look like without Marion - we've seen them without Nash, and without Amare, but can they survive an extended period without Marion? My opinion is "no"....
If Marion is perceived of as overly sensitive or a malcontent by NBA GM's, the Suns will never get a fair market value for him just like the Sixers with Allen Iverson. Perceived attitude problems diminish the value of talent in any case.