Why the Los Angeles Lakers Would Be Better Off Without Steve Nash

By now we all know the Los Angeles Lakers were able to add point guard Steve Nash into the fold during the offseason. With the acquisition of Nash, Los Angeles is undoubtedly better off than it would have been having any of last year’s incumbents running the point.

But overall, the team would be better off with a different point guard than Nash.

Let's look at the good Nash brings to the Lakers.

First and most importantly, he's an upgrade—and a huge one at that—over any of the point guards L.A. would have had on its roster. Nash is way better than Chris Duhon, Steve Blake or Darius Morris. He's also obviously better than Ramon Sessions, if the team would have re-signed him.

Nash also provides the Lakers with the best point guard the organization's had since Magic Johnson was running the show. And with L.A. adopting the Princeton offense for the 2012-13 season, the team definitely will benefit from having a seasoned player such as Nash running the point.

Unlike other options the Lakers had on the roster or that were available in free agency, Nash is well-versed in postseason play. With his new team looking to win another NBA championship, someone needs to run the show who won't shrivel up when the bright lights of the postseason shine hottest.

Nash should thrive in a playoff atmosphere.

Nash also is a team player. That's a good trait to have as a point guard. He's always willing to pass the ball to open teammates. And with a better supporting cast than what he had around him in Phoenix, Nash will find plenty of opportunities to get others involved on the offensive end.



So, with all of the positives surrounding Nash coming to the Lakers, you may wonder why the team would be better off with a point guard other than him.

Well, there are a few reasons why.

For one, Nash is basically a turnstile on the defensive end. With interior ...