Steve Nash....

[Antonio_]

^you didnt sound like this when Lakers had a negative season

hypocrite.

How am i hypocrite when i'm STILL saying the results is all i care? I was critical two years ago cause the team didn't have a good strategy for the future and they were doing embarassing results. Then i was critical at the beginning of the last season (the first 20-25 games) cause i wasn't seing a better strategy other than "let's call Phil back" but then i started to see it. And i stopped being critic. Now i'm not critic at all. About the MVP trophy i was mad last year when they didn't give it to Kobe, right, but now i don't care about it no more, since they just won't give it to Kobe. So what i care AGAIN is the results. I dream about Kobe leading the Lakers to a title. If Miami did it, we can do it too.

["THE" MoSav]

those are mvp numbers...

Not when you only play one end of the floor.

all the SUNS play like that...That doesnt change how VALUABLE he is to the team...

It changes how valuable he is as a player, and it definitely means he can't be the MOST valuable...PeACe

I dont think he should have won either, But he did..I think the League felt that with Amare out Nash was even more valuable...And when Nash doesnt play the Suns are a WAY different team...

yeah i agree, i was shocked when he won the 2nd straight mvp because i honestly thought Kobe had it, though you can make cases for both players.  But i also believe...

Suns without Nash = Lakers without Kobe, both are very valuable to their teams.

so very true..
Kobe>Nash
I think the NBA has a boner for Nash tho, for real...

[WILL-I-DIE]

Nash is killing em

[LAKERS_FAN89]

KOBE>>>>NASH

ALL DAY

[PLANT]

Kobe is a better basketball player than Nash but SN is more valuable to his team, no doubt.

[7even]

^ Yes, people act as if they don't know what "valuable" means.

The Lakers did hella good this year in the games without Kobe. Didnt they win like all of them?

Now look at the Suns before Nash came.

Nobody is argueing that Kobe is the better player, but Nash makes a huge difference for his team.

[Antonio_]

I'm not a fan of those arguments. You can have playbooks based on a certain player, so if you cut him from the team the team will suffer. It doesn't mean the player is God, but just very important for the team. Take the Suns: they're totally based on Steve Nash. It's Steve Nash's team. Obviously if you cut him the team will suffer. But that doesn't mean Nash is the best player in the team or the only one who can play with great results in their system. He's just the key player, the one who starts the offensive play and who dishes the ball to the right guy. The Lakers are based on the triangle. So even if Kobe is out, they can find a different way to score trying to involve other players more (Odom?). It's not a team based on Kobe. Kobe is just the guy who makes the difference because he's the best player in the NBA. That said, the "MVP" trophy is bullshit. How can you give a trophy to a player who ain't the best in the league? No, let me say it better: he's not even the best of his team. Bullshit.

[7even]

if youd simply give it to the best player it would be boring. it would be the same players over and over... according to you laker fans kobe wouldve gotten the trophy like 6 times already with another 6 coming, yes, that would be a great thing.

[WC Iz Active]

Kobe is a better basketball player than Nash but SN is more valuable to his team, no doubt.

[Antonio_]

if youd simply give it to the best player it would be boring. it would be the same players over and over... according to you laker fans kobe wouldve gotten the trophy like 6 times already with another 6 coming, yes, that would be a great thing.

Man the only real MVP Trophy who shouldn't be revoked is the NBA Finals one. Cause it means you're giving credits to the player most valuable for the team who won the NBA. But what's the point giving a MVP Trophy for the Regular season? I mean even Paul is fundamental for the Hornets. Why Nash and not Paul?

[PLANT]

if youd simply give it to the best player it would be boring. it would be the same players over and over... according to you laker fans kobe wouldve gotten the trophy like 6 times already with another 6 coming, yes, that would be a great thing.

Man the only real MVP Trophy who shouldn't be revoked is the NBA Finals one. Cause it means you're giving credits to the player most valuable for the team who won the NBA. But what's the point giving a MVP Trophy for the Regular season? I mean even Paul is fundamental for the Hornets. Why Nash and not Paul?

cmon man whats wrong with you?  Nash has more PPG and assists than Paul, plus, his team is going to win about 20 more games. 

Are you serious dude?

["THE" MoSav]

if youd simply give it to the best player it would be boring. it would be the same players over and over... according to you laker fans kobe wouldve gotten the trophy like 6 times already with another 6 coming, yes, that would be a great thing.

Man the only real MVP Trophy who shouldn't be revoked is the NBA Finals one. Cause it means you're giving credits to the player most valuable for the team who won the NBA. But what's the point giving a MVP Trophy for the Regular season? I mean even Paul is fundamental for the Hornets. Why Nash and not Paul?

cmon man whats wrong with you?  Nash has more PPG and assists than Paul, plus, his team is going to win about 20 more games. 

Are you serious dude?

Real Talk
and Nash has proven that he can CARRY a team and take them deep in the playoffs and 2 the playoffs! Paul is in his 2nd year and hasnt really done shit..A great young player, yes! But lets not get out of hand here..Kobe and Nash are both sooo valuable to there team. The Lakers woud not win 40 games without Kobe...

[Antonio_]

Bad english. No, i'm not saying Paul has done more than Nash in his career or that he's a better PG. Obviously he's not. I'm saying i don't see a reason to give a trophy to the Most Valuable player, since for example Paul is very important for the Hornets, and without him the Hornets are basically a lottery team. So what's the point selecting an MVP? MVP for which team? And why the Suns and not the Bulls, or the Kings, or the Hornets. Artest is fundamental for the Kings. Without him the Kings are a lottery team. With him they are a playoff team. So why Nash and not Artest? I simply don't see a reason to give it to the "M.V.P.". I'd rater give a trophy to the best player in the league (i mean the one who has had the best season). But the "M.V.P." thing is stupid. Wade (and his friends in black and white) is as important for his team than Nash. It's pointless to say Nash is more important for his own team. Biased. Stupid. Let's argue about who's the best player and about who's having a better season. That's more interesting to me.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

Kobe is a better basketball player than Nash but SN is more valuable to his team, no doubt.

That's not good, it means the Suns are not a balanced team. Being the MVP doesn't mean your team depends on you the most...

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

^ Yes, people act as if they don't know what "valuable" means.

The Lakers did hella good this year in the games without Kobe. Didnt they win like all of them?

Now look at the Suns before Nash came.

Nobody is argueing that Kobe is the better player, but Nash makes a huge difference for his team.

That's not what being the most valuable player in the league means.