Killa4luv wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:Erniecat wrote:AnubisADL wrote:Steve Nash is 37 years old man. He cant hang with the young guys physically and would be a MASSIVE liability on the defensive end. He be an ideal PG off the bench though.
I have to agree. In fact, Nash turns 38 in February, meaning if we sign him this summer, we'd have a 39-year-old starting point guard for the second half of next season. If we played the Bulls in the 2013 playoffs, it would be 24-year-old Derrick Rose vs. 39-year-old Steve Nash at the point.
!
Steve Nash takes care of his body better than any player in the league. He had a great year last year and I'm willing to be he's playing at 70 percent of his MVP days when he hits 40.
He was aboslutley awesome season on a pretty **** team... don't think either of you watched him play
Even if thats true which isn't anywhere near provable, taking care of one's body can only delay the effects of aging. 39 is 39. Odds are against him remaining health much beyond that. And we don't need 1 way players. If MDA wasnt the coach we wouldn't even be talking about Nash. If we're gonna overreach for a PG it should be Paul.
to avoid turing this into an argument around semantics, let me alter my original statement to:
Steve Nash takes care of his body better than as well as any player in the league
try googling "the Steve Nash diet" if my word isn't good enough
And who, besides you, said that I prefer Steve Nash to Chris Paul