PDA

View Full Version : How about this for Ben Wallace?


Simon2
10-31-2003, 08:29 PM
Jamison for Wallace and Sura

Detroit trades: PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 20.6 minutes)
Detroit receives: SF Antawn Jamison (22.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 39.3 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +8.0 ppg, -11.4 rpg, and -2.9 apg.

Dallas trades: SF Antawn Jamison (22.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 39.3 minutes)
Dallas receives: PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 73 games)
SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 55 games)
Change in team outlook: -8.0 ppg, +11.4 rpg, and +2.9 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

I read that Sura will get a limited role now in Detroit. Trade makes Detroit a stronger offensive team and Dallas a stronger rebounding team. Dallas gets a starting lineup of:

Nash, Fin, Walker, Dirk and Ben Wallace.

Shaq Attack2
10-31-2003, 08:36 PM
Will never, ever happen. Maybe if the Mavs traded Jamison and Walker and only got Wallace in return it could happen. But otherwise, not Jamison for Wallace straight up.

And yes, Mavs would be scary with Wallace even without Walker and Jamison. He brings so many rebounds, blocks and generally good defense it's just great. KG and Duncan won't have it totally easy, and certainly no guard will penetrate with Wallace in the lane.

Lvubun1
10-31-2003, 09:05 PM
Here we go again. Why was Jamison along with a couple of solid players traded away for NVE and scrubs? Because their isn't a lot of trade value for Jamison because of his contract, 6 years at the max. Now if Ben Wallace was available for Jamison why didn't the Warriors just trade Jamison for Wallace? Why do you think Jamison came so cheap? The Warriors were drugged? Cuban had pictures of Gary St. Jean and Chris Mullin playing naked twister? Their is some conspiacy around the league to give the Mavs good players? We have to realize the reason why Jamison came so damn cheap is because their wasn't alot of demand for him. We have to stop looking at these trades soley talent wise, I'm not sure in the current state of the NBA if their is another owner save Cuban who is willing to pay Jamison a max contract in'till the year 2010, nobody, and if another team is willing to take on Jamison, their going to be willing to send much talent back, kinda like how the W's didn't get much back besides NVE.

LRB
10-31-2003, 09:16 PM
We already have dozens of trades for Ben Wallace threads. Almost everyone if not everyone would require Detroit's GM to be smoking crack to make the trade. Wallace is a very good defender on western conference sized power forwards or eastern conference centers which IMO is about the same thing. He does not have the size to be near as effective against western conference sized centers. Furthermore he's almost as bad an offensive liability as the potato. Forget about driving to the basket when Wallace is in the game because his man will always be there. Wallace isn't a threat from outside 2 feet and he doesn't even have a decent postup game. He will not make us that much better defensively though he would definitely improve us. So even though we'd be raping the Pistons I don't see this helping us that much. The added defense by Wallace won't make up for the lost offense by Jamison coming off the bench.

Now I don't see how this helps Detroit? They can certainly get a much better deal IMO if they feel a burning need to dump Big Ben.

Simon2
10-31-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by: Lvubun1
Here we go again. Why was Jamison along with a couple of solid players traded away for NVE and scrubs? Because their isn't a lot of trade value for Jamison because of his contract, 6 years at the max. Now if Ben Wallace was available for Jamison why didn't the Warriors just trade Jamison for Wallace? Why do you think Jamison came so cheap? The Warriors were drugged? Cuban had pictures of Gary St. Jean and Chris Mullin playing naked twister? Their is some conspiacy around the league to give the Mavs good players? We have to realize the reason why Jamison came so damn cheap is because their wasn't alot of demand for him. We have to stop looking at these trades soley talent wise, I'm not sure in the current state of the NBA if their is another owner save Cuban who is willing to pay Jamison a max contract in'till the year 2010, nobody, and if another team is willing to take on Jamison, their going to be willing to send much talent back, kinda like how the W's didn't get much back besides NVE.

You speak of Jamison as if he was some scrub. This was the guy who was the man in Golden State. He obviously will give Detroit a solid SF. That's unless they want to hitch their wagon to Tayshaun Prince or Corliss Williamson. I don't understand why the long contract is such a bad idea for Jamison. He's young, not injury prone and he's a pretty good player. It wouldn't be bad for a team to tie this guy up for a long time. Another thing is that the Pistons already have a lot of Big men. Darco, Mehmet, Rebraca and Campbell. I don't know why Detroit didn't trade for Jamison in the off-season. Maybe the Mavs can pull this off. They seem to be stealing from other teams already. This doesn't look too much of a lopsided trade.

Shaq Attack2
10-31-2003, 10:54 PM
Sorry LRB, you've got to be on something if you don't think Wallace doesn't help the Mavs out "all that much" defensively. Bradley and Fortson are a joke compared to Wallace, an absolute joke. Wallace protects the lane and pulls down more rebounds than Fortson and Bradley combined. He's the best blocker in the NBA, and has gotten much better offensively this year.

LRB
10-31-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2
Sorry LRB, you've got to be on something if you don't think Wallace doesn't help the Mavs out "all that much" defensively. Bradley and Fortson are a joke compared to Wallace, an absolute joke. Wallace protects the lane and pulls down more rebounds than Fortson and Bradley combined. He's the best blocker in the NBA, and has gotten much better offensively this year.

SA2 he doesn't help the Mavs that much because it only address 1 of 5 players defensively. The Mavs need to lear to play better team D. One player isn't going to change that. And Wallace plays in the East, he'll still be good in the West but not as good.

As for Ben's offense, it may have gotten better, but it still SUCKS. Shaq shoots FT's better than Ben. Basically Ben is a garbage bucket scorer.

Murphy3
10-31-2003, 11:04 PM
Wallace isn't a threat from outside 2 feet and he doesn't even have a decent postup game. He will not make us that much better defensively though he would definitely improve us. So even though we'd be raping the Pistons I don't see this helping us that much. The added defense by Wallace won't make up for the lost offense by Jamison coming off the bench.

Ben Wallace does get eaten up from time to time by some of the better inside players...that happens. However, I can't say I really agree with any of this. Why wouldn't Ben Wallace help out that much defensively? That is absurd. Ben Wallace may not be the best defender in the game but he definitely is an impact defender down low.

And who cares if he doesn't score offensively. The Mavs could sacrifice a scorer for a top notch defender/rebounder.. there offense would barely notice.

And for the record, bench scoring can be very highly overrated. The Mavs could easily still have at least two top notch scoring options on the court at virtually all times even without Jamison. Besides, Wallace's additional offensive rebounds would just mean more looks for players such as dirk, aw, fin, and nash...

Wallace would instantly turn the mavs into one of the better rebounding teams in the NBA. Being a top notch defensive rebounding team instantly helps the Mavs defense. Yes, it's only one position..one player. However, a player such as wallace can change a game defensively with his presence.

Shaq Attack2
10-31-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Shaq Attack2
Sorry LRB, you've got to be on something if you don't think Wallace doesn't help the Mavs out "all that much" defensively. Bradley and Fortson are a joke compared to Wallace, an absolute joke. Wallace protects the lane and pulls down more rebounds than Fortson and Bradley combined. He's the best blocker in the NBA, and has gotten much better offensively this year.

SA2 he doesn't help the Mavs that much because it only address 1 of 5 players defensively. The Mavs need to lear to play better team D.

The Mavs' deficiencies are by no means limited to team defense, especially this year with the Mavs smaller lineup. Case in point; Derek Fisher driving for a layup with ease on the Mavs premiere night with absolutely no one even remotely able to block him, let alone even in position to do so. With Wallace there, Fisher gets his butt packed, every time. In addition, Kobe takes more wide open jumpers and less slashing with Big Ben in the lane. Wallace effectively stops all easy guard penetration, something the Mavs cannot do if their life depended on it.


One player isn't going to change that.

This is the DPY, one position is enough to improve the Mavs widely known defensive deficiencies. We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.


And Wallace plays in the East, he'll still be good in the West but not as good.

He does similarly well against Western conference teams, check his stats.


As for Ben's offense, it may have gotten better, but it still SUCKS. Shaq shoots FT's better than Ben. Basically Ben is a garbage bucket scorer.

It's actually a lot better. He's shooting more and his stroke is much better, as Larry Brown was insistent that he improve that part of his game. His first game back to the NBA was a 16 point game, not to mention the 5 steals, 6 blocks, and 17 rebounds of course. i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif

LRB
10-31-2003, 11:10 PM
Murphy Wallace is an impact player down low. Yes is is one of the better defenders in the NBA. I just don't think that just 1 defender will make that much of a difference. Since he sucks on offense Nellie will be less likely to play another defensive player with him.

But does Wallace help us against SA and LA. I don't think the helps that much. He doesn't have the height or size to be that effective guarding Duncan or Shaq. Sure most everyone has trouble with these two. But right now we feel we can get by anybody but them. I think that the offensive capabilities of Jamison gives us a better shot against these two than the added defensive abilities of Big Ben.

Murphy3
10-31-2003, 11:14 PM
that's absurd

It's like saying that Kobe Bryant or Dirk Nowtizki wouldn't significantly help the Nuggets of last year just because there weren't any other great scorers around them. I'm sorry, but you add a guy that's capable of scoring 30 points a game, it'll definitely help your offense.

the reverse is true for Wallace.

MavsFanFinley
10-31-2003, 11:17 PM
Nelson will never want a guy like Wallace here. He doen't score enough.

Murphy3
10-31-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley
Nelson will never want a guy like Wallace here. He doen't score enough.

I have to believe that Nellie would make an exception with a player such as Wallace

MavsFanFinley
10-31-2003, 11:22 PM
I have to believe that Nellie would make an exception with a player such as Wallace.

I know. We'd all like to think he would.

I don't see him doing it at the expense of Walker, Finley, Nash, or Jamison.

LRB
10-31-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
that's absurd

It's like saying that Kobe Bryant or Dirk Nowtizki wouldn't significantly help the Nuggets of last year just because there weren't any other great scorers around them. I'm sorry, but you add a guy that's capable of scoring 30 points a game, it'll definitely help your offense.

the reverse is true for Wallace.

Big difference Murphy. Only one guy can shoot the ball at one time. So it's easier for a single player to make an impact on offense than on defense where one player can shut down his man but can't guard all 5 players at the same time. All it takes is for one man to be open. One great player on defense will make a difference, but not near as much as 1 great player on offense.

So you analogy is apples and oranges IMO.

Murphy3
10-31-2003, 11:54 PM
sure..only one guy can shoot, but if there's only one legit scoring option, the defense can concetnrate their efforts on one man.

to think that wallace wouldn't make a big difference definsively..well, I'd put that argument right up there with the "najera for MVP" train of thought...just doesn't make alot of sense.

LRB
11-01-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
sure..only one guy can shoot, but if there's only one legit scoring option, the defense can concetnrate their efforts on one man.

to think that wallace wouldn't make a big difference definsively..well, I'd put that argument right up there with the "najera for MVP" train of thought...just doesn't make alot of sense.

Murphy you know that you're a closet Najera fan. Some day you'll come out.

And Both the Lakers and SA have a lot more that one offensive option. As I've said those are the 2 teams that we need to get by.

veruca salt
11-01-2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley

I have to believe that Nellie would make an exception with a player such as Wallace.

I know. We'd all like to think he would.

I don't see him doing it at the expense of Walker, Finley, Nash, or Jamison.


And I don't see Detriot giving up Wallace for anything on that table...unless it was 2-3 of them.

Murphy3
11-01-2003, 12:34 AM
"Murphy you know that you're a closet Najera fan. Some day you'll come out.

And Both the Lakers and SA have a lot more that one offensive option. As I've said those are the 2 teams that we need to get by. "

Yes, they have more than one scoring option..and your point is....?
I still don't see how you could possibly say that wallace wouldnt' make much of a diference..still waiting for that part to be explained

Nash13
11-01-2003, 12:42 AM
The reason why Wallace's defensive looks real good is because he's on a real good defensive team.

Although i can't see Wallace making that much of a difference, he would fill in the last piece of the puzzle. He would be a real liability in crunch time when teams need to foul.

If we were to give up Walker and Jamison, the trade wouldn't be worth it. We'd actually be worse off than last year. Our focus will be on getting a small forward, AGAIN.

Shaq Attack2
11-01-2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by: Nash13
If we were to give up Walker and Jamison, the trade wouldn't be worth it. We'd actually be worse off than last year. Our focus will be on getting a small forward, AGAIN.

No offense, but you're on crack. Dirk, Nash, Finley, Wallace, and Howard is a fine lineup, even if Howard is a rookie. Heck, put in a small forward vet if you want and have Howard back him up, it doesn't matter. There's no way that lineup is worse than last year, especially defensively, unless you think Raef's offensive skills are worth as much to the Mavs as Wallace's defensive skills.

Dirkenstien
11-01-2003, 12:55 AM
The hard cold truth is that Ben Wallace would infact make a very dramatic impact defensively on our team. Just do this for me...imagine our best center....now compare that person to Ben Wallace ..two time defensive player of the year... a monster who belongs to an elite group of only four players in the history of the NBA to lead the league in both Rebounds and Blocks at the end of the season. How is this not an improvement??? it doesnt matter whether or not he is just one shut down defender among the 4 of our other players on the court... will that be your excuse everytime a good defender comes along?? "O ..well i think we'll pass because that's the one thing our team needs most so he couldnt possibly make that much of a difference" thats just rediculous and doesnt even make sense. You have to start somewhere..and yes, Nellie would definitely jump on this trade if it were proposed.

LRB
11-01-2003, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
"Murphy you know that you're a closet Najera fan. Some day you'll come out.

And Both the Lakers and SA have a lot more that one offensive option. As I've said those are the 2 teams that we need to get by. "

Yes, they have more than one scoring option..and your point is....?


My point is that even if Ben shuts down one offensive option, the other can simply score the points. 1 player playing D, no matter how good they are, is not going to make huge improvements to a team that doesn't play D. I think our guys can play D, but it is not as highly focused as offense under this coaching system. But a offensive liability like Wallace on the floor and Nellie will be going small ball to get more offense. Meaning we'll get terrible defense at 4 positions and pretty good D at one postion. Still I believe the net would make us better, but not necessarily by that much. Our opponents still score more often than not when we need key stops.

grndmstr_c
11-01-2003, 06:02 AM
If we were to give up Walker and Jamison, the trade wouldn't be worth it. We'd actually be worse off than last year. Our focus will be on getting a small forward, AGAIN.

Well said.

Simon2
11-01-2003, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley
Nelson will never want a guy like Wallace here. He doen't score enough.

How about a guy named Fortson?

SeriousSummer
11-01-2003, 10:04 AM
The best I can do in a trade for Ben Wallace:

Dallas trades: SF Antawn Jamison (22.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SG Michael Finley (19.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.0 apg in 38.3 minutes)
PG Travis Best (8.4 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 3.5 apg in 25.1 minutes)
Dallas receives: SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 20.6 minutes)
PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SF Corliss Williamson (12.0 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 1.3 apg in 25.1 minutes)
PG Chucky Atkins (7.1 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.7 apg in 21.5 minutes)
SG Hubert Davis (1.8 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 0.7 apg in 7.6 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -14.8 ppg, +10.3 rpg, and +1.1 apg.

Detroit trades: SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 20.6 minutes)
PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SF Corliss Williamson (12.0 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 1.3 apg in 25.1 minutes)
PG Chucky Atkins (7.1 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.7 apg in 21.5 minutes)
SG Hubert Davis (1.8 ppg, 0.8 rpg, 0.7 apg in 7.6 minutes)
Detroit receives: SF Antawn Jamison (22.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 82 games)
SG Michael Finley (19.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 3.0 apg in 69 games)
PG Travis Best (8.4 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 3.5 apg in 72 games)
Change in team outlook: +14.8 ppg, -10.3 rpg, and -1.1 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Basically, you take everything Detroit doesn't want plus Wallace, and give up the best Dallas is willing to give up that Detroit needs (I'm assuming Dirk is untouchable & Nash stays with Dirk). It also works with Walker in the trade instead of Finley.

If I'm Dallas, then I do it with Finley but not with Walker (sorry Fin Fans). If I'm Detroit than I do it with Walker, but not with Finley.

4cwebb
11-01-2003, 10:27 AM
The strange thing about this thread is that the Mavs don't have a player, other than the Dirk or Nash, that the Pistons really need (or want). If the Pistons wanted a scoring SF, they could have drafted Carmelo. Instead they went with Darko, and will hang their hats on Prince and Williamson at SF. They have a SG in Hamilton that they must like since they just gave him $62 million. They like Billups (but Nash would clearly be an upgrade).

And, let's not forget that Boston was dying to get rid of Walker...so desperate that they were willing to take on Raef's ridiculous contract. Detroit is not, by any means, desperate to rid themselves of Wallace, so in my opinion it would require Dirk or Nash going to Detroit to pry Wallace from the Pistons, and I don't see either Nelson giving up Dirk or Nash. Even offering Walker and Jamison isn't enough. I think the Pistons say no right away.

Oh, and Wallace would help the Mavs D from the start. He would be the only defensive minded player on the floor, and that may make him a bit less effective than he has been in Detroit, but that is still better than anything on the Mavs' roster currently (as pointed out above).

SeriousSummer
11-01-2003, 10:40 AM
Detroit could have taken Melo. But I think the reason they didn't was because Darko is a bigger talent. I think they still need a small forward. But they only trade Wallace if they think both Okur and Darko are the real thing. They probably are.

LRB
11-01-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by: Simon2

Originally posted by: MavsFanFinley
Nelson will never want a guy like Wallace here. He doen't score enough.

How about a guy named Fortson?

Don't look for Fortson to keep getting big minutes for long.

V
11-01-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by: LRB
Murphy Wallace is an impact player down low. Yes is is one of the better defenders in the NBA. I just don't think that just 1 defender will make that much of a difference. Since he sucks on offense Nellie will be less likely to play another defensive player with him.

But does Wallace help us against SA and LA. I don't think the helps that much. He doesn't have the height or size to be that effective guarding Duncan or Shaq. Sure most everyone has trouble with these two. But right now we feel we can get by anybody but them. I think that the offensive capabilities of Jamison gives us a better shot against these two than the added defensive abilities of Big Ben.

I tired of hearing so much about stopping Duncan & Shaq. No one stops Duncan or Shaq. What we're talking about is improving interior defense overall. The Mavs need someone in the middle to discourange penetration & to occasionally throw some sh*t back.

LRB
11-01-2003, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by: V

Originally posted by: LRB
Murphy Wallace is an impact player down low. Yes is is one of the better defenders in the NBA. I just don't think that just 1 defender will make that much of a difference. Since he sucks on offense Nellie will be less likely to play another defensive player with him.

But does Wallace help us against SA and LA. I don't think the helps that much. He doesn't have the height or size to be that effective guarding Duncan or Shaq. Sure most everyone has trouble with these two. But right now we feel we can get by anybody but them. I think that the offensive capabilities of Jamison gives us a better shot against these two than the added defensive abilities of Big Ben.

I tired of hearing so much about stopping Duncan & Shaq. No one stops Duncan or Shaq. What we're talking about is improving interior defense overall. The Mavs need someone in the middle to discourange penetration & to occasionally throw some sh*t back.


No no one does stop Duncan or Shaq. But LA and SA are the 2 teams that we're trying to move past this year. So any moves we make need to be looked at as how do they help us get better in playing these two teams. If they don't, then why make the trade? We're already ahead of the other teams.

So as to guarding Duncan or Shaq. Nellie won't play two really bad offensive players on the floor at once for any significant stretches. Wallace is a bad offensive player. So that means either Wallace guards Shaq and Duncan or Dirk does. While nobody stops these 2, dirk would be much worse than most in his D or risk getting into fould trouble. If Dirk gets into foul trouble we're sunk. So that means we put Wallace on these 2. Now can we really expect him to even try and slow them down and still close the lane down. If wallace comes over to close the lane down all the guy has to do is pass to Shaq or Duncan and LA or SA scores. Don't see how this helps us get past LA or SA.

Murphy3
11-01-2003, 12:13 PM
lrb, you really don't have a leg to stand on
i understand the point you're trying to make..but it's simply not a very good one

V
11-01-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: V

Originally posted by: LRB
Murphy Wallace is an impact player down low. Yes is is one of the better defenders in the NBA. I just don't think that just 1 defender will make that much of a difference. Since he sucks on offense Nellie will be less likely to play another defensive player with him.

But does Wallace help us against SA and LA. I don't think the helps that much. He doesn't have the height or size to be that effective guarding Duncan or Shaq. Sure most everyone has trouble with these two. But right now we feel we can get by anybody but them. I think that the offensive capabilities of Jamison gives us a better shot against these two than the added defensive abilities of Big Ben.

I tired of hearing so much about stopping Duncan & Shaq. No one stops Duncan or Shaq. What we're talking about is improving interior defense overall. The Mavs need someone in the middle to discourange penetration & to occasionally throw some sh*t back.


No no one does stop Duncan or Shaq. But LA and SA are the 2 teams that we're trying to move past this year. So any moves we make need to be looked at as how do they help us get better in playing these two teams. If they don't, then why make the trade? We're already ahead of the other teams.

So as to guarding Duncan or Shaq. Nellie won't play two really bad offensive players on the floor at once for any significant stretches. Wallace is a bad offensive player. So that means either Wallace guards Shaq and Duncan or Dirk does. While nobody stops these 2, dirk would be much worse than most in his D or risk getting into fould trouble. If Dirk gets into foul trouble we're sunk. So that means we put Wallace on these 2. Now can we really expect him to even try and slow them down and still close the lane down. If wallace comes over to close the lane down all the guy has to do is pass to Shaq or Duncan and LA or SA scores. Don't see how this helps us get past LA or SA.

Wallace would defend Duncan / Shaq as well or better than anyone currently on the Mavs roster... which is to say he probably wouldn't slow either of them down significantly.

So what does Wallace do? Why trade for Walace? Because I would love to see Ginobilli, Rose, Fisher, Payton, Bowen, Turkoglu, Bryant, Mercer, George, Parker, Malone, and Horry get their SH*T packed from the help-side every time they drive to the lane or post up.

4cwebb
11-01-2003, 12:18 PM
It appears that if there is an ideal player to fit into the Mavs at C, it would be Wallace. Sure, he's a huge offensive liability as far as touches, but he battles hard for rebounds, so it's not as if his man can just completely ignore him. But, I go back to my original thought that the only players the Pistons would consider in trading Wallace would be Dirk or Nash, and neither player is tradeable from the Mavs' point of view.

dude1394
11-01-2003, 12:20 PM
I'm just not a fan of wallace. He looks like a lot more atheletic fortson to me. Probalby about the same height come to think about it.

I don't know who the center solution is, I've always thought that one of our biggest issues wasn't inside defense as much as perimeter defense. As far as pushing folks and throwing themselves around fortson does a pretty good job. Doesn't block a lot but will put someone down and surely make a difference rebounding-wise. He's just atrocious (as is wallace) offensively.

Mouring/Malone/Brad Miller were my solutions at center. Possibly one of the Atlanta players would be a fit. But the guy can't be a total zero offensively at the end of games. It just WON'T happen.

You can't name a CHAMPIONSHIP team that has a complete zero on the floor at the end of games. You have to take a longer view of him than just defensive numbers. If he was so durn great he could have carried his team last year, but it didn't/won't happen.

LRB
11-01-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
lrb, you really don't have a leg to stand on
i understand the point you're trying to make..but it's simply not a very good one

The last time I looked, about 15 seconds ago, I had 2 fully functional legs. Admittedly they're a little tired and sore from my new workout routine, but they both still function quite well. Oh wait, you mean figuratively.

Well Murphy as you are so fond of calling people out for making the above kind of statements, what evidence and/or arguments do you have to support your claim that my arguments are invalid? I can certainly see how someone could hold a different viewpoint, but it is difficult to debate when someone just says you're wrong because I said so.

LRB
11-01-2003, 12:27 PM
Wallace would defend Duncan / Shaq as well or better than anyone currently on the Mavs roster... which is to say he probably wouldn't slow either of them down significantly.

So what does Wallace do? Why trade for Walace? Because I would love to see Ginobilli, Rose, Fisher, Payton, Bowen, Turkoglu, Bryant, Mercer, George, Parker, Malone, and Horry get their SH*T packed from the help-side every time they drive to the lane or post up.



V in man-to-man D I gladly will admit that Wallace would guard Duncan and Shaq as well or better than anyone we have on the roster currently. And I don't think that anyone defender can stop either of these 2 or slow them considerably down. It takes a coordinated team effort to have any chance of doing so.

Yes I would love a help side shot blocker to come over and close up the lane. But how do you keep Wallace's man from scoring when Big Ben leaves to shut down the lane? Ben can't be in 2 places at once. That's the point that I'm making. Until we improve our team D, all the opponents have to do is pass to the Ben's man to get a wide open layup when Ben comes to help on dribble drives or postups of other defenders.

MavKikiNYC
11-01-2003, 12:30 PM
I'm just not a fan of wallace. He looks like a lot more atheletic fortson to me. Probalby about the same height come to think about it.

I didn't want to be the one to bring this up, but....

He's about 6.7

LRB
11-01-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

I'm just not a fan of wallace. He looks like a lot more atheletic fortson to me. Probalby about the same height come to think about it.

I didn't want to be the one to bring this up, but....

He's about 6.7


With or without the 'fro?

dude1394
11-01-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

I'm just not a fan of wallace. He looks like a lot more atheletic fortson to me. Probalby about the same height come to think about it.

I didn't want to be the one to bring this up, but....

He's about 6.7

Fortson or wallace or both? My buddie and I at the game have been going back and forth about how tall fortson really is. I'm thinking he's about the same height as finley.

LRB
11-01-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

I'm just not a fan of wallace. He looks like a lot more atheletic fortson to me. Probalby about the same height come to think about it.

I didn't want to be the one to bring this up, but....

He's about 6.7

Fortson or wallace or both? My buddie and I at the game have been going back and forth about how tall fortson really is. I'm thinking he's about the same height as finley.

I wouldn't be surprise if Fortson was even shorter than Fin, say around 6'6" or so.

4cwebb
11-01-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
You can't name a CHAMPIONSHIP team that has a complete zero on the floor at the end of games. You have to take a longer view of him than just defensive numbers. If he was so durn great he could have carried his team last year, but it didn't/won't happen.

Presuming you are talking about a complete zero on the offensive end, how about the Lakers of the mid-80s with Kurt Rambis? That guy was a terrible offensive player. Also, I presume that you are discounting Rodman's presence on the last three Bulls' championship teams due to Jordan's presence.

LRB
11-01-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by: 4cwebb

Originally posted by: dude1394
You can't name a CHAMPIONSHIP team that has a complete zero on the floor at the end of games. You have to take a longer view of him than just defensive numbers. If he was so durn great he could have carried his team last year, but it didn't/won't happen.

Presuming you are talking about a complete zero on the offensive end, how about the Lakers of the mid-80s with Kurt Rambis? That guy was a terrible offensive player. Also, I presume that you are discounting Rodman's presence on the last three Bulls' championship teams due to Jordan's presence.

My memory about whether Rambis finished games for the Lakers is a admittedly a little fuzzy since it was so long ago, but I do seem to remember Rambis rarely being in to close games. He was a starter and great role player, but I don't remember him being a regular crunch time player.

As for Dennis Rodman, he was only a bad offensive player when he choose to be. While he would never be considered great, Rodman did have semi decent skills. And his FT'ing was more a lack of concentration than anything. With the game on the line he shot much better though never great. Rodman's offensive game was always very underrated.

Murphy3
11-01-2003, 01:51 PM
it's amazing that you could argue the benefits of bradley and then say something about Wallace not making much of an impact on the mavs

a bit confused LRB?

Fah Q
11-01-2003, 02:10 PM
I know this is a BS trade, but if the Mavs were able to aquire Wallace my inclination would to be starting him at SF.

C - Bradley
PF - Dirk
SF - Wallace
SG - Fin
PG - Nash

I know that with this lineup Dirk and Wallace would be interchangeable on the defensive end. Then whichever Toine wasn't traded would be your sixth man.

With this lineup there aren't going to be many times when a slasher comes through the middle uncontested. There would still be 3 scorers on the floor and this team would murder most teams rebounding.

grndmstr_c
11-01-2003, 02:13 PM
Two things, though, regarding Bradley. One is that he's not near as much of an offensive liability as Wallace is. No low-post moves, but his mid-range "jumper" is a pretty nice, reliable shot. The second, and in my mind most important difference is that he's already on our roster. We don't have to trade an all-star caliber player to get him. Combine that with the fact that we may have a chance to go after J O'neal in a trade next summer, and that, for example, Foyle (who would serve a similar purpose) will be a (likely gettable) free agent next summer, and I think it's questionable that going after Wallace (which may be a pipe dream anyway) would be the best thing to do.

Murphy3
11-01-2003, 02:20 PM
it's a complete hypothetical with regards to wallace

however, there's no excuse for saying that wallace would not do much for the mavs defensively.... that's just a totally horrific statement.

if someone wants to argue that you wouldn't want to give up the offense...that's at least somewhat something that someone could argue..although it's very difficult to say that losing one of 5 options would have a significant negative impact on the Mavs offense.

it's impossible to argue that wallace wouldn't have a significant impact on the mavs defense. anyone that would do so has some serious issues that they need to overcome before posting anything else basketball related


I don't believe that there's a basketball writer, gm or coach in the country that wouldn't instantly give up jamison for ben wallace.

LRB
11-01-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
it's amazing that you could argue the benefits of bradley and then say something about Wallace not making much of an impact on the mavs

a bit confused LRB?


First of all, Bradley is more of a offensive player than Wallace IMO. I'm not saying Shawn is a great or even good offensive player, just considerably better overall that Wallace. Next to play Shawn, we don't have to give up any players that would make us weaker at other positions. To get Wallace here we would most likely have to give up 2 of Fin, Walker, or Jamison.

Ben has lots of advantages over Shawn, but Shawn is almost a whole foot taller than Ben. And on a per minute basis Shawn is much better than Wallace at blocking shots. Last season Shawn blocked a shot every 10.1 minutes while Ben only blocked a shot every 12.5 minutes. I also feel that Shawn is much better than Wallace at altering shots, a stat which of course isn't kept by the NBA.

Now Ben is definitely a much better rebounder than Shawn. Ben grabbed a rebound every 2.56 minutes last season compared to Shawn's 3.62 rebounds per minute. Still Shawn is a good rebounder, Ben is just much better. However, playing in the West most of the time I would expect Ben's numbers to come down some. Still I wouldn't expext it to go below 1 rebound every 3 minutes even in a worst case scenario. But remember we have to give up 2 players to get Ben and need to figure their rebounding as well. Fin, Walker, and Jaimsion averaged a rebound every 6.60, 5.76 and 5.61 minutes respecitively. Not great but their total rebounds were 5.8, 7.2, and 7.0 respecitively. And combination of the 2 would be within 4 rebounds of Big Ben's totall.

Ben would be the best man-to-man post defender on this team despite his lack of height. But he can't shut down Shaq and Duncan one on one and if Wallace comes to help someone else, his man will be open for a layup unless we get our defensive rotations down which we've always struggled with. If Wallace stops the drive there is still the dish to his man available.

So by getting Big Ben we lose a ton of points. We lose lots of opportunities to draw fouls on opposing players (which really is the best defense IMO). We gain only marginally on rebounding for what we give up. We get someone who is a big liability in close games because of his lack of O and FT skills. And he's not as good at shot blocking as who we already have. Plus he's undersized.

Murphy3
11-01-2003, 02:26 PM
how do you lose a ton of points by getting big ben.

please tell me? surely you must admit that anything that the mavs would lose because he's not an option (a fifth option) would be more than made up for by his additional offensive rebounding..and surely you must realize that the mavs would gain more offensive possessions simply by having two dominating defensive rebounders in dirk and wallace.

well, surely you wouldn't argue this because you're dead wrong on the situation to begin with.

LRB
11-01-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
it's a complete hypothetical with regards to wallace

however, there's no excuse for saying that wallace would not do much for the mavs defensively.... that's just a totally horrific statement.

if someone wants to argue that you wouldn't want to give up the offense...that's at least somewhat something that someone could argue..although it's very difficult to say that losing one of 5 options would have a significant negative impact on the Mavs offense.

it's impossible to argue that wallace wouldn't have a significant impact on the mavs defense. anyone that would do so has some serious issues that they need to overcome before posting anything else basketball related


I don't believe that there's a basketball writer, gm or coach in the country that wouldn't instantly give up jamison for ben wallace.

Thank you for your opinion Murph, but do you have any thing to explain how one player will make a huge difference when the team D still sucks?

LRB
11-01-2003, 02:43 PM
how do you lose a ton of points by getting big ben.

Gee Murph you're a really smart guy, I thought you'd know this one already. But let's just use last years numbers and Say Michael Finely and Walker are traded which are the least stat loss for the mavs.


Mavs gain 6.9 points from Wallace and loose 19.3 pts from Fin and 20.5 points from Walker. That equals a negative 32.9 points a game.

Now Mavs gain 15.4 rebounds per game from Wallace but loose 5.8 rebounds from Fin and 7.2 rebounds from Walker. That equals a positive 2.4 rebounds per game.

Let's say that we get 2.4 more possesion each game and score 3pts on each possesion. That gives us 7.2 points per game more. But since we were at -32.9 we're still down 25.7 points.

4cwebb
11-01-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

how do you lose a ton of points by getting big ben.

Gee Murph you're a really smart guy, I thought you'd know this one already. But let's just use last years numbers and Say Michael Finely and Walker are traded which are the least stat loss for the mavs.


Mavs gain 6.9 points from Wallace and loose 19.3 pts from Fin and 20.5 points from Walker. That equals a negative 32.9 points a game.

Now Mavs gain 15.4 rebounds per game from Wallace but loose 5.8 rebounds from Fin and 7.2 rebounds from Walker. That equals a positive 2.4 rebounds per game.

Let's say that we get 2.4 more possesion each game and score 3pts on each possesion. That gives us 7.2 points per game more. But since we were at -32.9 we're still down 25.7 points.

Are you really assuming that Walker or Finley or going to have the same averages this season? That seems unlikely at best. You can't just throw those numbers around in a vacuum. If the Mavs don't have Finley or Walker, Nash, Dirk and Jamison would all score more. The offensive philosophy wouldn't change for the Mavs with the addition of Wallace, and considering that the Mavs haven't been getting too many points out of the C position the last two years, I don't think you can assume that the per game scoring would decrease drastically.

bogey
11-01-2003, 02:52 PM
It may be unlikely that they get similar averages, but it is reasonable to assume they will produce at or near their career averages or last seasons results. Besides, you need a point of reference.

4cwebb
11-01-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by: bogey
It may be unlikely that they get similar averages, but it is reasonable to assume they will produce at or near their career averages or last seasons results. Besides, you need a point of reference.

If they had a line for that in Vegas, I'd take that bet. I doubt either player will average the number of points that he averaged last season. Plus, that discounts the fact that Dirk seems to be the type of scorer that can average close to or over 28 points a game if he gets more shots.

LRB
11-01-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by: bogey
It may be unlikely that they get similar averages, but it is reasonable to assume they will produce at or near their career averages or last seasons results. Besides, you need a point of reference.

Excellent response Bogey. And that was my intent.

4CWebb, no I don't think their averages will stay the same. I also don't think Ben's would either. I think fin's and walkers scoring will go down and Wallaces rebounds and shot blocks would go down. I would expect bot Fin's and Walkers rebounding to go up though. Bradley averaged almost as much as Wallace (6.7 to 6.9) in almost half the minutes (21.4 to 39.4). Last year the Bradley/LaFrentz center combo averaged a combined 16 points per game. That's not what i would call "not to manny posts.


offensive philosophy wouldn't change for the Mavs with the addition of Wallace

I would strongly disagree. We would no longer be able to put 4 all star level scorers on the floor at the same time.


don't think you can assume that the per game scoring would decrease drastically.

How can you lose 2 huge offensive options and not see decrease? If you're talking about last year, I might agree that it wouldn't decrease drastically. I would also say that our points allowed wouldn't decrease drastically. We would however be a much worse team in the clutch. We loose 2 very good clutch players and recieve one very poor one.

LRB
11-01-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by: 4cwebb

Originally posted by: bogey
It may be unlikely that they get similar averages, but it is reasonable to assume they will produce at or near their career averages or last seasons results. Besides, you need a point of reference.

If they had a line for that in Vegas, I'd take that bet. I doubt either player will average the number of points that he averaged last season. Plus, that discounts the fact that Dirk seems to be the type of scorer that can average close to or over 28 points a game if he gets more shots.


OK lowball view:

Mavs gain 6.9 points from Wallace and loose 10.3 pts from Fin and 12.5 points from Walker. That equals a negative 15.6 points a game.

Now Mavs gain 13.5 rebounds per game from Wallace but loose 6.8 rebounds from Fin and 8.2 rebounds from Walker. That equals a negative 1.5 rebounds per game.

Let's say that we get 1 more possesion each game for each 1.5 rebounds and score .4 points on each possesion. That gives us .4 points per game less. But since we were at -15.6 we're still down 16.0 points.

It still sucks.

Murphy3
11-01-2003, 03:13 PM
the mavs big five simply aren't going to average over 100 points..which, they'd do if they reached their scoring output from last year.

you don't just say...
trade jamison for wallace
losing jamison means -20 points per game for the mavs
adding wallace means + 7 points per game for the mavs

you don't come up with the mavs scoring 13 points less than they otherwise would have... you can bet that wallace will hit around 50% of his putbacks..and you can bet that finley, walker, nash, and dirk would all get more attempts per game.

and no, you wouldn't say
trade jamison -7 rebounds per game
add wallce +15.4 rebounds for the game for the mavs..

It's not a net result of +8.4 rebounds for the mavs.

and no, bogey...trust me, i know this wasn't what you were implying.

however, how much would any of you actually expect the mavs offense to suffer? How much would it hurt the mavs offense to have only 4 great scoring options instead of five...especially since the scoring option that they added is better than the 4th option they had last year when the mavs led the league in scoring..

4cwebb
11-01-2003, 03:30 PM
Not to mention the fact that the Mavs have been the top scoring offense in the league the last two years without 4 all star level scorers. The Mavs have proven that three quality scorers are enough to give you the highest output on offense in the league.

dude1394
11-01-2003, 04:17 PM
You got me thinking with the kurt rambis/dennis rodman comments.


Rambis: No contest. At his peak only averaged 23 minutes a game. Looks like he was used sort of like eddie/fortson will be.
Kurt Rambis Stats (http://www.lakerstats.com/playerprofile.php?playerid=227)

Rodman: A potential there. He at least averaged 31 minutes a game. A rebounding stud no doubt. So rodman looks like an anomally,
A horrible offensive player on championship teams. Boy he was an offensive rebounding machine good grief 5.0 per game and many times close to 6.

Wallace can't quite touch dennis yet. needs another 3 rpg to catch him.

Murphy3
11-01-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
You got me thinking with the kurt rambis/dennis rodman comments.


Rambis: No contest. At his peak only averaged 23 minutes a game. Looks like he was used sort of like eddie/fortson will be.
Kurt Rambis Stats (http://www.lakerstats.com/playerprofile.php?playerid=227)

Rodman: A potential there. He at least averaged 31 minutes a game. A rebounding stud no doubt. So rodman looks like an anomally,
A horrible offensive player on championship teams. Boy he was an offensive rebounding machine good grief 5.0 per game and many times close to 6.

Wallace can't quite touch dennis yet. needs another 3 rpg to catch him.

I'd take Rodman in his prime over Wallace as well..but, Rodman is one of the better combo rebounders/defenders in the history of the game.

However, wallace is definitely the closest thing to Rodman currently in the NBA.

And you're right, Rambis is more along the lines of a Najera.. however, I'd devinitely say that Rambis was significantly better than najera..

dude1394
11-01-2003, 04:29 PM
Agreed... .The question would be is if he would actually be the person to put the mavs over the top against shaq/kobe...duncan...??...

I don't know.... Certainly dennis/wallace were difference makers but only in the context of a team already either loaded... Maybe he would work..

At any rate, I'd probably give up jamison for him. But no more than that.

Murphy3
11-01-2003, 04:34 PM
he'd be a huge difference maker..would he put the mavs over the top? well, there's no telling. the mavs have a chance right now to win a title..with wallace for jamison, they'd obviously be significantly better defensively without being that much worse off offensively. they'd still be a contender for the title..just with a better shot

4cwebb
11-01-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Agreed... .The question would be is if he would actually be the person to put the mavs over the top against shaq/kobe...duncan...??...

I don't know.... Certainly dennis/wallace were difference makers but only in the context of a team already either loaded... Maybe he would work..

At any rate, I'd probably give up jamison for him. But no more than that.

Fair point re: Rambis. I'll admit that I didn't pay as much attention to pro basketball as I do now, so I didn't realize that Rambis played so little per game.

And, while you might only give Jamison, I would guess that Cuban would give Jamison and another quality player (maybe Finley) for a guy like Wallace.

kg_veteran
11-02-2003, 03:38 PM
I know I'm walking into this thread late, but I had to point this out.

Other than Ben Wallace, the Pistons really don't have any outstanding defensive players. In fact, other than Ben Wallace, they really don't have any very good defensive players. Last year they did, in Michael Curry and Cliff Robinson, but this year they really don't. Yet, they look to be a very good defensive team again this year.

Just some food for thought.

Murphy3
11-02-2003, 04:07 PM
but, he wouldn't make much of a difference on the cowboys defensively.
i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif

I don't think people realize how much a really, really good interior defender would help out any team

let me add something...actually, most people do realize this..but, for some reason there's a couple that don't

LRB
11-02-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
but, he wouldn't make much of a difference on the cowboys defensively.
i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif

I don't think people realize how much a really, really good interior defender would help out any team

let me add something...actually, most people do realize this..but, for some reason there's a couple that don't

Wow Murphy if it's so obvious that Ben would turn the Mavs into a defensive powerhouse, then why is it so hard for you to come up with any arguments other than "it's obvious" or "it's my opinion" or "it's my opinion that most people believe this"? Why is there no answer how Ben would make a difference when if he left his man to block a shot that all the other team needs to do is pass the ball to Ben's man for a layup. Without the Mavs getting down their defensive rotations. At best Big Ben would just force another pass on help D and not get beatup as bad by Shaq and Duncan when guarding them as our other defenders do. Of course I'm open to hearing arguments how this wouldn't be the case.



Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I know I'm walking into this thread late, but I had to point this out.

Other than Ben Wallace, the Pistons really don't have any outstanding defensive players. In fact, other than Ben Wallace, they really don't have any very good defensive players. Last year they did, in Michael Curry and Cliff Robinson, but this year they really don't. Yet, they look to be a very good defensive team again this year.

Just some food for thought.


KG I haven't gotten the opportunity to see Detroit play yet this year. They do appear to be doing very well as a team defensively from looking at the box scores though. And I would agree that Ben is probably the only very good defender on the team. However I would be willing to be that the rest of the team is probably playing good team D and making their rotations for the most part. If the Mavs could learn to play good team D then they could take more advantage of a great lowpost defender. However, without the rotations being there on defense, the team will be vunerable when the post defender leaves his man to help on D. Still Ben or any other premier defender would definitely make improvements to the Mavs defense. But would it be enough to make up for what we would have to give up to get them? Without the Mavs learning to play better team D I would say no.

Ummmmm Ok
11-02-2003, 08:37 PM
I have read this thread and the more and more I think about it, I just don't see HOW you can get Ben Wallace from Detroit. I have ran and reran trades trying to come up with something that would Please both sides and it just ain't there. Wallace is to their team as to what Dirk is to our team. How do you trade away your Franchise player? So without further crapola, this is the closest thing I could come up with:

Dallas trades:
SF Eduardo Najera (6.7 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 1.0 apg in 23.0 minutes)
C Shawn Bradley (6.7 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.7 apg in 21.4 minutes)
PG Steve Nash (17.7 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 7.3 apg in 33.1 minutes)
Dallas receives:
PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 20.6 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -16.9 ppg, +4.9 rpg, and -4.2 apg.

Detroit trades:
PF Ben Wallace (6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.6 apg in 39.3 minutes)
SG Bob Sura (7.3 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 3.2 apg in 20.6 minutes)
Detroit receives:
SF Eduardo Najera (6.7 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 1.0 apg in 48 games)
C Shawn Bradley (6.7 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 0.7 apg in 81 games)
PG Steve Nash (17.7 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 7.3 apg in 82 games)
Change in team outlook: +16.9 ppg, -4.9 rpg, and +4.2 apg.

Now I know the first thing you are going to say, how in the hell could you trade away Nash? Well you have to give something to get something. There is nothing on the Dallas team that Detroit needs other than maybe Walker aka Instant Offense but his contract is so high they wouldn't do it. Bradley would flourish in the (L)eastern Conference so theres no problem there. Najera is a throwin. (don't shoot me chiwas)

Now you wanna know the trade kicker? Detroit wouldn't do this trade because Nash would bolt come summertime and than they would only get Bradley and Najera for Wallace. On top of that Dirk would be an emotional train wreck and no telling if he would "ever" recover.

Hmmmm, I wonder if Cuban could just resign him for the full MLE next summer and than just SLIDE some money into an offshore Account in the Caymans aka Under the table for Nash? i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

kg_veteran
11-03-2003, 08:34 AM
KG I haven't gotten the opportunity to see Detroit play yet this year. They do appear to be doing very well as a team defensively from looking at the box scores though. And I would agree that Ben is probably the only very good defender on the team. However I would be willing to be that the rest of the team is probably playing good team D and making their rotations for the most part. If the Mavs could learn to play good team D then they could take more advantage of a great lowpost defender. However, without the rotations being there on defense, the team will be vunerable when the post defender leaves his man to help on D. Still Ben or any other premier defender would definitely make improvements to the Mavs defense. But would it be enough to make up for what we would have to give up to get them? Without the Mavs learning to play better team D I would say no.

I guess my point was that teams somehow tend to play better team defense when they have a great individual defender (or two or three) in the mix. Sure, the rest of the Mavericks have to make good defensive rotations and play good team defense. But Wallace would certainly make that proposition a lot easier. Wallace is a mixture of Bradley's shotblocking with tremendous athleticism, strength, and quickness. Wallace would be the great eraser. Everybody plays better defense knowing they have a player like that behind them. Heck, that's why the Mavericks play their best defense with Bradley in the middle, even though he's not on Wallace's level defensively.

Your initial argument was that Wallace really wouldn't improve the team substantially on defense. I think that's just incorrect. On the other hand, the question of how in the world Wallace could be acquired is a legitimate one. I don't think there's any way Joe Dumars would give up Wallace unless Nowitzki was in the return package.

Murphy3
11-03-2003, 08:38 AM
I guess my point was that teams somehow tend to play better team defense when they have a great individual defender (or two or three) in the mix.

Especially when it's a center.

mavsfan4life
11-03-2003, 08:44 AM
Sorry buddy, but this will never happen. Ben Wallace <u>IS</u> the franchise. They will continue to build the team around him for many years to come. Maybe Darko, but definitley not Big Ben!

Murphy3
11-03-2003, 08:54 AM
I don't think anyone realistically does believe that it'll happen, buddy.

MavsFanatik33
11-03-2003, 08:56 AM
What is up with all thiese 'what-if" scenarios.
What if MJ comes back and leads The Mavs to a ring?

Ummmmm Ok
11-03-2003, 09:06 AM
I think Dallas has a better chance at getting Jordan than they do at Wallace! i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

Murphy3
11-03-2003, 09:08 AM
Debates and discussions like this are a common occurrence when talking sports.

MavsFanatik33
11-03-2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
Debates and discussions like this are a common occurrence when talking sports.

Yes, but let's be reasonable...

Murphy3
11-03-2003, 09:13 AM
Read the thread. I believe that most people are. If you have a problem with someone being unreasonable, you should have the decency to specifically mention their name/quote in your comments. Otherwise, you're just bogging down the current conversation by throwing out your generalizations.

MavsFanatik33
11-03-2003, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
Read the thread. I believe that most people are. If you have a problem with someone being unreasonable, you should have the decency to specifically mention their name/quote in your comments. Otherwise, you're just bogging down the current conversation by throwing out your generalizations.

Who's griping now MurphMan?
i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

kg_veteran
11-03-2003, 09:21 AM
MavsFanatik33 - If you don't like "what ifs" like this, don't participate.

MavsFanatik33
11-03-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
MavsFanatik33 - If you don't like "what ifs" like this, don't participate.

Ok,fine. Jamison for Wallace straight up would be the best option for the Mavs. We finally get the center we need and we don't give up a starter. There's no way Detroit would EVER do this though.

kg_veteran
11-03-2003, 09:46 AM
I'd probably give Finley and Jamison to get Wallace, but I doubt the Pistons would even do that. I'm still convinced it would take Nowitzki, and that will never happen.

MavsFanatik33
11-03-2003, 09:49 AM
FINLEY AND JAMISON kg? That;s a little riskiy....

kingrex
11-03-2003, 09:51 AM
As much pub as the mavs get for "burning teams" on trades, I'm not sure Detroit would take anything less than Dirk. Could the Mavs survive without Dirk? As blasphemous as that sounds, our current squad minus Dirk and plus Ben Wallace might be slightly better.

Yikes, here comes the dogpile.

MavsFanatik33
11-03-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by: kingrex
As much pub as the mavs get for "burning teams" on trades, I'm not sure Detroit would take anything less than Dirk. Could the Mavs survive without Dirk? As blasphemous as that sounds, our current squad minus Dirk and plus Ben Wallace might be slightly better.

Yikes, here comes the dogpile.

Wow kingrex, only 150 posts and already going for the knockout post, I respect that.

Murphy3
11-03-2003, 09:52 AM
I'd be tempted to do the same..

it would leave you with a starting lineup of:

Nash
Delk
Walker
Dirk
B.Wallace


bench:
Best - Delk
Daniels - Howard
Howard - TAW (i'd assume he'd be the man that came off the IR)
Najera-Fortson
Bradley-Fortson


As for trading dirk...well, I don't think you trade your best player...the only player on the team that is virtually unguardable

Dirk will make everyone else on the team SO much more efficient offensively simply by forcing teams to double him.

MavsFanatik33
11-03-2003, 09:53 AM
Think about it though, offense is our whole game and w/o Finley and Jamison that's 30 something points gone; Wallace can't score and that's a fact.

kg_veteran
11-03-2003, 09:55 AM
You have to give to get when you aren't trading with a crappy team. You tell me which lineup is better equipped to win it all:

Wallace - Bradley - Fortson
Nowitzki - Najera
Walker - Howard
Delk - Daniels
Nash - Best

OR
Bradley - Fortson - Najera
Nowitzki - Jamison
Walker - Howard
Finley - Delk
Nash - Best


Personally, I think it's the first one. That's a phenomenal rebounding squad that has a great interior defender and a good one off the bench, as well as athletic defenders on the perimeter. I don't see what's not to like, other than losing one of my favorite players in Finley. But as I've stated many times before, I'm a Mavericks fan first, and this trade would make the team better.

kingrex
11-03-2003, 09:56 AM
MavsFanatik,

With Nash, Walker & Dirk (even Delk) you could argue that is enough offense to compensate for Wallace's (supposed lack), but we gain a solid defender and arguably the best rebounder in the Assn.

u2sarajevo
11-03-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33
Think about it though, offense is our whole game and w/o Finley and Jamison that's 30 something points gone; Wallace can't score and that's a fact.

He does play D. We have plenty of scorers.

kg_veteran
11-03-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by: kingrex
As much pub as the mavs get for "burning teams" on trades, I'm not sure Detroit would take anything less than Dirk. Could the Mavs survive without Dirk? As blasphemous as that sounds, our current squad minus Dirk and plus Ben Wallace might be slightly better.

Yikes, here comes the dogpile.

Now you're talking about trading away a Top 5-6 player for a Top 15 player instead of two Top 40 players for a Top 15 player. That doesn't make much sense.

Murphy3
11-03-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33
Think about it though, offense is our whole game and w/o Finley and Jamison that's 30 something points gone; Wallace can't score and that's a fact.

You don't say 'this guy scores this amount of points and this guy scores this much so the guy coming in has to score that much'.
that's not how it works.

Yes, the mavs would lose some of their offensive fire power but they'd still have arguably their three best offensive threats.

Just a question..how many points did the mavs score before they had NVE and Raef? How many did they score afterwards? Obviously, the players they gave up scored less per game than the players they got. Yet, the offense didn't average 15-20 more points a game, did it?

'If' the mavs traded fin and jamison for wallace, you can be assured that Dirk would suddenly get 20+ shots a game. Nash would be taking more shots...Walker would get more looks.

It wouldn't fall on Ben Wallace to pick up all of the offensive slack that was lost by moving Fin and Jamison

kg_veteran
11-03-2003, 10:02 AM
If that trade were made, I could see these projected point totals as realistic:

Wallace 10 ppg - Bradley 5 ppg - Fortson
Nowitzki 30 ppg - Najera 2 ppg
Walker 18 ppg - Howard 6 ppg
Delk 8 ppg - Daniels 6 ppg
Nash 18 ppg - Best 3 ppg

That's 106 ppg. I don't think I'm that far off. The Mavs would still be very good offensively.

Murphy3
11-03-2003, 10:07 AM
That Mavs would instantly be one of the best defensive rebouning teams in the NBA.. hell, one of the best offensive rebounding teams for that matter.

You could stick dirk at the 4 and leave him there for the most part...

obviously, no chance this happens...but,..hypothetically speaking

kingrex
11-03-2003, 10:11 AM
Murphy,

You're right. No way Detroit takes that deal, but it's fun to speculate no less.

kg,

You're totals are right on, but how high do you think our rebs/game would be. As Murphy speculates this may make us the best in the NBA.

kg_veteran
11-03-2003, 10:15 AM
kingrex - Through 3 games, the Mavs are already top 3 in the NBA with the team they have. With Wallace, I'd look to see something like this:

Wallace 15 - Bradley 4
Nowitzki 10 - Najera 3
Walker 7 - Howard 2
Delk 3 - Daniels 2
Nash 3 - Best 2

That's like 51 boards a game. That's insane.

kingrex
11-03-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
kingrex - Through 3 games, the Mavs are already top 3 in the NBA with the team they have. With Wallace, I'd look to see something like this:

Wallace 15 - Bradley 4
Nowitzki 10 - Najera 3
Walker 7 - Howard 2
Delk 3 - Daniels 2
Nash 3 - Best 2

That's like 51 boards a game. That's insane.

This is making me nuts! Alright, how can we make this happen. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

With this "fantasy team", will we be hands-down favorites to win the title?

Murphy3
11-03-2003, 10:20 AM
With this "fantasy team", will we be hands-down favorites to win the title?
No, but it would make it a two team race.

kingrex
11-03-2003, 10:25 AM
I assume you mean the Lakers.

And what a race that would be.