This isn't exactly an appeal to authority, but I wish I'd gotten around to staunchly defending the Shaq-to-Suns trade before ESPN finally published a Bill Simmons column doing the same.
This is grounded in intuition rather than analysis, but then so was my (OK, everyone's) belief that the Giants would get big playoff momentum from nearly upsetting New England.
The two situations are similar, in that bean-counting points strongly one direction but Hollywood storytelling points strongly in another. The big difference seems to be that most people thought the Giants would do great in the playoffs (where at the time, "great" could mean even as many as two playoff wins, much less four), while almost nobody likes the Shaq trade.
Posted by Matt Bruce at February 13, 2008 04:05 PMI like the Shaq deal. I mean, sure, I've been hating him for years because of the teams on which he has played (being a Phoenix and Detroit fan) but I think I can get beyond that and get behind the idea of cheering for Shaq.
I agree with Simmons that Nash will do wonders for Shaq... and add that Shaq will do wonders for Amare. Amare has enough of an outside game to be effective with a real big man down low.
Shaq, even at this stage of his career, is still the most legitimate center the Suns have ever had. They've had good Power Forwards like Alvin Adams and Tom Chambers (and Amare) forced into playing center and unexciting "big" men like Mark West, Luc Longley and the Jakes.
Posted by: mountmccabe at February 14, 2008 06:09 PM