Analyzing Phoenix as Shaq settles in with new team

Gimme that: Shaquille O'Neal (right), shown here blocking a shot by Jarrett Jack, has helped the Suns win six in a row. Jonathan Ferrey/Getty Images

MAILBAG Submit a comment or question for Jack. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

Having made what many proclaimed the worst trade in NBA history, and what one pundit described to me as "the worst trade ever in any sport, worse than Lou-Brock-for-Ernie-Broglio" (in 1964, the Cardinals got the base-stealing leadoff legend, while the Cubs got a sore-armed, over-the-hill pitcher who won only seven more games before retiring in 1966), what do we say now about the deal that brought Shaquille O'Neal to the Suns?

I'll say what I've said from the beginning: The Suns, who have won six in a row after Wednesday's victory at Seattle, have at least as much chance to win the NBA title as they did before the deal. No more, no less. The party line in Phoenix is that their chances are better -- and I believe they believe that -- while the general belief elsewhere is that they changed their style too much to prevail. I fall somewhere in between, and if you want to consider that a cop-out, go ahead.

For one thing, I want to hear one expert tell me that he or she has the Western Conference figured out. While all of us (myself included) have gone gaga over the depth of the West, what gets overlooked is the fact that every contender has at least one glaring weakness. Over the past few days alone, I've heard pundits discount the Lakers (shaky if Andrew Bynum can't be reintegrated into the lineup), Spurs (too old and they've lost four in a row through Wednesday) and Mavericks (Jason Kidd has failed to add any mojo). I'm not ready to toss any of the top seven into the dustbin. (It's hard for me to see No. 8, the Warriors, going all the way.)

After spending a few days in Phoenix recently, watching the Suns win a white-knuckler against the Spurs, trounce the hapless Grizzlies and turn back their doppelgänger, the Warriors, here are a few observations:

• Mike D'Antoni has been one of the most popular coaches in the league since he took over the Suns in 2003. But the stylistic change brought about by the acquisition of Shaq, combined with fans' playoff frustrations of the past three years (losses in the conference finals or semifinals), has ended D'Antoni's extended honeymoon in Phoenix. That's the way it always happens. Some fans are on him, and the pressure to win now is very real. It's just not as much fun as it was when he caught the league by surprise with an up-tempo game.

But it's not like he has suddenly morphed into Jeff Van Gundy. (JVG, by the way, can be delightful company when he's not coaching a basketball team.) D'Antoni always jokes that he'll hang it up when Steve Nash does -- well, it might not be a joke -- but his departure, either by resignation or firing, is in no way imminent or contingent on the Suns' winning this season.

• The most persistent of critiques aimed at D'Antoni is that he plays his stars, particularly Nash, too many minutes. This drives him to distraction both because Nash is nowhere near the top of the league in minutes played and because a congenital back condition causes Nash to stiffen up more than most players when he is out of the game.

"Do people really think Steve's minutes aren't on my mind?" D'Antoni said. "Every game I talk to [athletic trainer] Aaron [Nelson] to see how Steve feels, whether keeping him over there for two more minutes will make him worse. And I have to ask, too: Can we survive as a team with him off the floor for two more minutes? But I go back to John Stockton. In Stockton's 13th year in the league, he played 35 minutes a game. This is Steve's 11th year, and he's playing 34."

1 of 2