PDA

View Full Version : Trade with Atlanta that makes since for both teams


Blonde Bomber
12-01-2003, 10:47 AM
Dallas trades: SF Antawn Jamison (13.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.3 apg in 28.4 minutes)
Dallas receives: C Theo Ratliff (6.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 0.9 apg in 30.8 minutes)
SF Stephen Jackson (13.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.7 apg in 35.3 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +6.4 ppg, +4.4 rpg, and +2.3 apg.

Atlanta trades: C Theo Ratliff (6.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 0.9 apg in 30.8 minutes)
SF Stephen Jackson (13.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.7 apg in 35.3 minutes)
Atlanta receives: SF Antawn Jamison (13.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.3 apg in 17 games)
Change in team outlook: -6.4 ppg, -4.4 rpg, and -2.3 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Dallas and Atlanta being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Dallas and Atlanta had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

I think this trade makes since for both teams. Atlanta gets a 20+ scorer All-Star calliber SF who can get his shot off from anywhere on the court. Dallas gets a nice option at SF in Jackson off the bench. He would pretty much serve exactly like he did with the Spurs last year. A nice spot up shooter with above average defensive abilitites. Ratliff moves into the starting center position and is an instant defensive presence. Plus it dismisses all the talk about who should be starting. The roles would be better defined on this team.

I actually think Atlanta would do this deal....

Change in our lineup would be......

PG: Nash, Best
SG: Finley, Howard, Delk
SF: Walker, Jackson, Najera
PF: Nowitzki, Fortson
C: Ratliff, Bradley

IR: Daniels, TAW, Steffanson


Now I love how this team would shape up. With Ratliff and Bradley playing center it would take Nowitzki totally out of the picture at center and it would cement him at PF, where he should be. Plus we would always have a shot blocking presence down low and we have Fortson there incase of foul trouble.

Looking to next year: I would look to extend both Nash and Walker. Walker has been the team MVP so far this season and has shown us no reason why he shouldn't be looked at as a long term fit here. This should be Best's only year here. Not a knock on his game but only as a way to get Daniels more playing time here behind Nash. Both the rookies really excite me about the future once the Big 3 start to decline most notably, Nash and Finley.

MikeB
12-01-2003, 10:59 AM
I really really like Jamison. That being said...I'd have to seriously consider this trade.

Blonde Bomber
12-01-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by: MikeB
I really really like Jamison. That being said...I'd have to seriously consider this trade.


I am also a big fan of Jamison, but you have to give up something to get something. I think we all know we need more help in the low post and it looks like we can't depend on Dirk picking up some of that because he seems to always roll his ankle's whenever he asked to mix it up down low. Keep Dirk around the outside of the paint and gaurding PF's not C's. Have Walker do the dirty work down low (offensivley) and keep Dirk in the areas where he excels which is 15 ft. and out.

It just seems to me that we are going to have to eventually give up one the Antwans to get some help in the low post. And it's hard for me to give up on Walker when you see what he has meant to the team early on.

XERXES
12-01-2003, 11:33 AM
Atlanta is trying to slash payroll. Taking Jamison wouldn't work for them. That being said - expect to see Ratliff in a Mavs jersey at or before the trade deadline. They almost got him in a deal this offseason - and it was only dealyed b/c of the transfer of ownership.

EricaLubarsky
12-01-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by: XERXES
Atlanta is trying to slash payroll. Taking Jamison wouldn't work for them. That being said - expect to see Ratliff in a Mavs jersey at or before the trade deadline. They almost got him in a deal this offseason - and it was only dealyed b/c of the transfer of ownership.

If you want to give Cuban any credit as a genius and not an absolute idiot (as the current situation with centers justifies) then you have to have faith that something like this is in the works because our 5 spot is not working

LRB
12-01-2003, 01:29 PM
A we don't need stephen Jackson. He would get in the way more than anything else and be near impossible to trade this year unless we did the trade in conjunction with Atlanta. So in essence, we're trading Jamison for Ratliff. Ratliff has health issues and just doesn't bring as much to the table as Jamison.

No, I wouldn't do this at all.

Ratliff is only slightly above a spare and going down, i don't trade a potential allstar talent for that that most likely hasn't reached his best for that.

All we need is a spare center from FA. No since giving up one of our crown jewels to get little more than the spare we could get for free.

SeriousSummer
12-01-2003, 02:03 PM
LRB:

I don't know who is out there on the free agent market worth anything unless Sabonis can and wants to play.

There isn't even much on the possible trade market. Cleveland probably has an extra center as does Detroit (but I don't know that Rebraca is any help; we could have signed Campbell if we wanted him; Milicic is untouchable at this point as is Wallace at any reasonable cost--maybe we could pry Okur out, but it would cost very heavily). Ostertag at Utah makes too much. Ratliff is a possibility.

Seattle has three spares--maybe they would give one up.


Dallas trades: SF Eduardo Najera (3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 15.2 minutes)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 21.0 minutes)
Dallas receives: C Calvin Booth (6.2 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 0.6 apg in 21.5 minutes)
PF Reggie Evans (2.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 0.1 apg in 19.6 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -3.5 ppg, +6.0 rpg, and -0.6 apg.

Seattle trades: C Calvin Booth (6.2 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 0.6 apg in 21.5 minutes)
PF Reggie Evans (2.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 0.1 apg in 19.6 minutes)
Seattle receives: SF Eduardo Najera (3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 17 games)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 12 games)
Change in team outlook: +3.5 ppg, -6.0 rpg, and +0.6 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

I don't know how much that helps.

SeriousSummer
12-01-2003, 02:08 PM
I think this is what it would cost to get Okur--or something like it.

Dallas trades: SF Antawn Jamison (13.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.3 apg in 28.4 minutes)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 21.0 minutes)
PG Travis Best (3.6 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 2.4 apg in 16.2 minutes)
SG Marquis Daniels (3.9 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 0.7 apg in 6.2 minutes)
Dallas receives: SG Bob Sura (3.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 2.1 apg in 14.3 minutes)
SF Corliss Williamson (8.3 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.8 apg in 19.7 minutes)
PG Chucky Atkins (5.0 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 2.2 apg in 17.2 minutes)
C Mehmet Okur (9.4 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 1.1 apg in 23.7 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -4.2 ppg, +2.4 rpg, and +1.0 apg.

Detroit trades: SG Bob Sura (3.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 2.1 apg in 14.3 minutes)
SF Corliss Williamson (8.3 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.8 apg in 19.7 minutes)
PG Chucky Atkins (5.0 ppg, 1.2 rpg, 2.2 apg in 17.2 minutes)
C Mehmet Okur (9.4 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 1.1 apg in 23.7 minutes)
Detroit receives: SF Antawn Jamison (13.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.3 apg in 17 games)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 12 games)
PG Travis Best (3.6 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 2.4 apg in 17 games)
SG Marquis Daniels (3.9 ppg, 0.6 rpg, 0.7 apg in 10 games)
Change in team outlook: +4.2 ppg, -2.4 rpg, and -1.0 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

kg_veteran
12-01-2003, 02:18 PM
Ratliff is a very good shotblocker -- and that's about it. When you look at his production based on the minutes he plays, it's pathetic. Also, I know he's supposed to be a defensive stopper and all, but I don't really see it.

Ratliff is too expensive for what you're getting in return. No way I'd trade a talented young stud SF like Jamison for an aging center who can do only one thing well -- and really not any better than the center we have.

The guy to look at is Mihm. He's tremendously productive in 18 mpg, and I think he really could be had for Delk. What a deal that'd be.

LRB
12-01-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Ratliff is a very good shotblocker -- and that's about it. When you look at his production based on the minutes he plays, it's pathetic. Also, I know he's supposed to be a defensive stopper and all, but I don't really see it.

Ratliff is too expensive for what you're getting in return. No way I'd trade a talented young stud SF like Jamison for an aging center who can do only one thing well -- and really not any better than the center we have.

The guy to look at is Mihm. He's tremendously productive in 18 mpg, and I think he really could be had for Delk. What a deal that'd be.

KG if you can get the deal done in trading Delk for Mihm, please do so. Of course I know that we can't make it official until December 21st.

And Serious Summer, a flat oug no to the Detroit trade. I'm aginst trading any of the Big 5 or Bradley for spares adn that's all we would get.

The Seattle trade I might consider.

kg_veteran
12-01-2003, 03:04 PM
Yeah, I'll get to work on that, LRB. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

I'd do the Seattle trade.

Dirkenstien
12-01-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Ratliff is a very good shotblocker -- and that's about it. When you look at his production based on the minutes he plays, it's pathetic. Also, I know he's supposed to be a defensive stopper and all, but I don't really see it.

Ratliff is too expensive for what you're getting in return. No way I'd trade a talented young stud SF like Jamison for an aging center who can do only one thing well -- and really not any better than the center we have.

The guy to look at is Mihm. He's tremendously productive in 18 mpg, and I think he really could be had for Delk. What a deal that'd be.

I agree with this. Celeveland is in need of a solid p/g but i'm not sure if they would take this straight up perhaps causing us to throw in one of our talented rookies. Nonetheless it would be nice to see something similar to this

Nash13
12-01-2003, 05:11 PM
The Cavs are depleted in the point and shooting guard position. Wagner is injury prone, and they need a 2 guard.

I'd be all for the Delk deal.

SeriousSummer
12-01-2003, 05:38 PM
I'd probably do the Detroit deal--but not the Seattle one. Okur has some serious upside, and it's not quite fair to call Williamson & Sura spares--they can both play a little.

I think Atkins is a spare, but so is Best. I just swapped them to make the salaries work out--not because I think one is better than the other.

SeriousSummer
12-01-2003, 05:45 PM
To clarify (I don't think I was clear before), the deal is really Jamison for Okur. Everything else is satisfying the salary cap.

I'd do Jamison for Okur, except that I don't see a way for Dallas to sign Okur. No Bird rights, and, I think, no early Bird rights (but my mind grows fuzzy here) and I think Okur will go for more than the mid-level exception.

So, in the end, I guess I don't do it either.

Walkerforthree
12-01-2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Ratliff is a very good shotblocker -- and that's about it. When you look at his production based on the minutes he plays, it's pathetic. Also, I know he's supposed to be a defensive stopper and all, but I don't really see it.

Ratliff is too expensive for what you're getting in return. No way I'd trade a talented young stud SF like Jamison for an aging center who can do only one thing well -- and really not any better than the center we have.

The guy to look at is Mihm. He's tremendously productive in 18 mpg, and I think he really could be had for Delk. What a deal that'd be.

KG if you can get the deal done in trading Delk for Mihm, please do so. Of course I know that we can't make it official until December 21st.

And Serious Summer, a flat oug no to the Detroit trade. I'm aginst trading any of the Big 5 or Bradley for spares adn that's all we would get.

The Seattle trade I might consider.

So you're calling Okur, Williamson and Sura bums??? LOL.

sike
12-01-2003, 06:06 PM
I have not been on the Mihm thing, but for Delk.....oh yeah...without a doubt...cuz Delk has just seen the few minutes he was getting fly out the window and land in a promising young rookie's lap!...so if the deal would work, do it...

LRB
12-01-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by: Walkerforthree

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Ratliff is a very good shotblocker -- and that's about it. When you look at his production based on the minutes he plays, it's pathetic. Also, I know he's supposed to be a defensive stopper and all, but I don't really see it.

Ratliff is too expensive for what you're getting in return. No way I'd trade a talented young stud SF like Jamison for an aging center who can do only one thing well -- and really not any better than the center we have.

The guy to look at is Mihm. He's tremendously productive in 18 mpg, and I think he really could be had for Delk. What a deal that'd be.

KG if you can get the deal done in trading Delk for Mihm, please do so. Of course I know that we can't make it official until December 21st.

And Serious Summer, a flat oug no to the Detroit trade. I'm aginst trading any of the Big 5 or Bradley for spares adn that's all we would get.

The Seattle trade I might consider.

So you're calling Okur, Williamson and Sura bums??? LOL.

No I called them spares. They certainly aren't stars, so I call them a spar. I don't trade a star for spars. With bums I don't even want them on my team. Either cut'em or place them on the IR.

Walkerforthree
12-01-2003, 06:50 PM
you have to be joking. You think Okur is a spare???? The man is already almost getting 10/0 on a team with lot's of big men. Okur would thrive here and will be sensational. Corliss is a uber Najera, so do you think Najera is a mega spare??

Jamisonite
12-01-2003, 07:06 PM
Okur is not worth jamsion...you must be crazy

Jamisonite
12-01-2003, 07:07 PM
And how about instead of Ratliff send us Shareef...but wed have to send someone like najera

LRB
12-01-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by: Walkerforthree
you have to be joking. You think Okur is a spare???? The man is already almost getting 10/0 on a team with lot's of big men. Okur would thrive here and will be sensational. Corliss is a uber Najera, so do you think Najera is a mega spare??

> 10 PPG and > 8 rpg > 44% FG% > 28% 3pt shooting > 70% FT shooting > 1.0 BPG doesn't look like a star to me. Spare, possibly a decent to very good spare and I do mean possibly, but a spare none the less. He's not worth a proven starter and 20+ per game scorer. Okur really sucked eggs last year. 18 games of decent at best spare stats does not make one a star.

Corliss is a spare, Najera is a spare, the only player not a spare mentioned in the trad is Jamison.

Okur would thrive here and will be sensational.

Two words: Raef LaFrentz. Okur is not near as good as Raef was when he came here. Talk about spare.

Rule #1 in how not to be a dumbass of a GM: Don't trade stars for spares unless something is really wrong with the star.

LRB
12-01-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by: Jamisonite
And how about instead of Ratliff send us Shareef...but wed have to send someone like najera

Shareef is the last thing that we need on this team. He's excess baggage and can't play the 5 spot. Really our problem is that we have too many PF as it is. Why would we want another????

Walkerforthree
12-01-2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Walkerforthree
you have to be joking. You think Okur is a spare???? The man is already almost getting 10/0 on a team with lot's of big men. Okur would thrive here and will be sensational. Corliss is a uber Najera, so do you think Najera is a mega spare??

> 10 PPG and > 8 rpg > 44% FG% > 28% 3pt shooting > 70% FT shooting > 1.0 BPG doesn't look like a star to me. Spare, possibly a decent to very good spare and I do mean possibly, but a spare none the less. He's not worth a proven starter and 20+ per game scorer. Okur really sucked eggs last year. 18 games of decent at best spare stats does not make one a star.

Corliss is a spare, Najera is a spare, the only player not a spare mentioned in the trad is Jamison.

Okur would thrive here and will be sensational.

Two words: Raef LaFrentz. Okur is not near as good as Raef was when he came here. Talk about spare.

Rule #1 in how not to be a dumbass of a GM: Don't trade stars for spares unless something is really wrong with the star.


Im sorry, but you are being extremely ignorant. For one, I NEVER ONCE said I'd do the trade, did you notice that??? I merely refuted that those player's are spares. You do realize this is Okur's SECOND NBA YEAR, if you call a 10/8 guy in his second year a spare, you sir are being ignorant. Difference b/t okur and raef??? Okur has a marvelous post game, raef never did. And uh, when did I ever call Okur a star. I said he is good and will be very good soon. I never called him a star, fe are stars, especially in their 2nd year, and Jamison is good, very good, but no star. Okur sucked eggs lasty year??? In games w/ PT, he had some monstorous games, 20/10 a few times and he was A FREAKIN ROOKIE. You try to rave about Howard (Who I love and will be great) but call Okur, who is only is his second year, a spare, thats being hypocritical.

LRB
12-01-2003, 08:12 PM
If you're not a star, then you're a spar. Okur has yet to get to 10/8. And he shoots horrible % from everywhere. He does have good strentghs of rebounding and getting to the FT line (though not at converting once he's there). He could possibly develop into more than a spar, but Jamison is already a star. At this point we don't need to be trading stars for potential. And yeah, I know you never said that you'd do it.

But Okur is a spar and will be until he can become a star.


BTW Howard in spar as well. A very talented spare wtih great potential, but still a spare at this point.

And I've seen lots of people who looked better than Okur never materialize to fulfill even half of their potential. He's a gamble, giving up an almost sure thing for something which value is still highly doubtful at best.

BTW ever heard of Michael Smith who played briefly for the Celts in the late 80's? Had several 20+ scoring nights while subbing while Bird was out injured with his back. But it was more fluke than preview of what was to gome. The guy never stuck even as a spare and only lasted a brief time in the league. This is more the rule than the exception.

Walkerforthree
12-01-2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
If you're not a star, then you're a spar. Okur has yet to get to 10/8. And he shoots horrible % from everywhere. He does have good strentghs of rebounding and getting to the FT line (though not at converting once he's there). He could possibly develop into more than a spar, but Jamison is already a star. At this point we don't need to be trading stars for potential. And yeah, I know you never said that you'd do it.

But Okur is a spar and will be until he can become a star.


BTW Howard in spar as well. A very talented spare wtih great potential, but still a spare at this point.

And I've seen lots of people who looked better than Okur never materialize to fulfill even half of their potential. He's a gamble, giving up an almost sure thing for something which value is still highly doubtful at best.

BTW ever heard of Michael Smith who played briefly for the Celts in the late 80's? Had several 20+ scoring nights while subbing while Bird was out injured with his back. But it was more fluke than preview of what was to gome. The guy never stuck even as a spare and only lasted a brief time in the league. This is more the rule than the exception.


Ok, this is more reasonable. However, surely you don't think there is no middle ground between star and spare, c'mon. Okur has had 10/18 and 12/18 games this year, just watch him grow. But I agree, no to the trade.

LRB
12-01-2003, 08:22 PM
He's played what 18 games this year. Yes he had a couple of good ones. That also meant that he had some total stinkers. His FG% is too low as is his FT% which has seriously digressed from last year. A very bad trend. Can he handle more minutes? Can he play well out of the East? Can he keep up the pace for a whole year? Right now he's at best a very good role player. He'll need more than 18 games and better performance in those games to leave the spare title behind. BTW Eddie has had some real nice numbers as had Bradley. Both are spares, good role players and valuable, but definitely not stars. OKur isn't doing as well as Shawn would if he was well enough to play those minutes and Nellie would let him.

And yes there is a middle ground, call it the budding star, but Okur has a ways to go to get there.

Walkerforthree
12-01-2003, 10:11 PM
14 points, 9 boards, 2 steals for Okur tonight, oh, and 4-6 from the field and 6-6 from the line i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

Dirkenstien
12-02-2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by: Jamisonite
Okur is not worth jamsion...you must be crazy

I agree with this. As of right now Okur is not worth Jamison

Dirkenstien
12-02-2003, 12:24 AM
What about this?

Dallas trades: SF Eduardo Najera (3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 15.2 minutes)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 21.0 minutes)
Dallas receives: C Mehmet Okur (9.4 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 1.1 apg in 23.7 minutes)
SG Bob Sura (3.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 2.1 apg in 14.3 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +0.1 ppg, +3.1 rpg, and +1.9 apg.

Detroit trades: C Mehmet Okur (9.4 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 1.1 apg in 23.7 minutes)
SG Bob Sura (3.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 2.1 apg in 14.3 minutes)
Detroit receives: SF Eduardo Najera (3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 17 games)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 12 games)
Change in team outlook: -0.1 ppg, -3.1 rpg, and -1.9 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Jamisonite
12-02-2003, 12:34 AM
detroit wouldnt go for that

Jamisonite
12-02-2003, 12:35 AM
and honestly Okur might have a C by his name but hes nothing of the sort. Hes less of a center than dirk is

LRB
12-02-2003, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by: Walkerforthree
14 points, 9 boards, 2 steals for Okur tonight, oh, and 4-6 from the field and 6-6 from the line i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

So he had a decent game. Eddie has had better during his career. Are you saying the Eddie is better than Okur? If so why do we need Okur. If not, then it's like saying Shawn Bradley made a 3pters and was 1 for 1 shooting there for 1 game so now he should be in the 3pt contest.

BTW on 11/29/03 against the "mighty"i/expressions/rolleye.gif Washington Wizards Okur only managed 10 points and on 2 for 6 shooting and 3 rebounds in 22 minutes. He recorded no blocks, 1 steal, 2 turnovers, 3 fouls, and no assists. His only semi-redeeming value was going 6 for 8 from the line. Still very S-P-A-R-E like numbers.

How about 11/12/03 against GS. 23 minutes, 2 for 7 from the field, 1 for 2 from the line, 3 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 fouls, 1 turnover, 0 steals, 0 blocks in 23 minutes. Now if that isn't an U-G-L-Y line.

Because he's not totally worthless, Okur will come up with good games. Because he's nothing more than a spare he'll also come up with a lot of bad games. When he can produce the good games or at least average games on a 4 to 1 ratio to the bad ones then we can talk about him being not being a spare.

LRB
12-02-2003, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by: Dirkenstien
What about this?

Dallas trades: SF Eduardo Najera (3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 15.2 minutes)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 21.0 minutes)
Dallas receives: C Mehmet Okur (9.4 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 1.1 apg in 23.7 minutes)
SG Bob Sura (3.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 2.1 apg in 14.3 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +0.1 ppg, +3.1 rpg, and +1.9 apg.

Detroit trades: C Mehmet Okur (9.4 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 1.1 apg in 23.7 minutes)
SG Bob Sura (3.3 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 2.1 apg in 14.3 minutes)
Detroit receives: SF Eduardo Najera (3.6 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 17 games)
PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 12 games)
Change in team outlook: -0.1 ppg, -3.1 rpg, and -1.9 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Works for Dallas, but Detroit's GM would need a lot of cocaine to justify pulling the string on this one.

Simon2
12-02-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by: Blonde Bomber
Dallas trades: SF Antawn Jamison (13.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.3 apg in 28.4 minutes)
Dallas receives: C Theo Ratliff (6.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 0.9 apg in 30.8 minutes)
SF Stephen Jackson (13.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.7 apg in 35.3 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +6.4 ppg, +4.4 rpg, and +2.3 apg.

Atlanta trades: C Theo Ratliff (6.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 0.9 apg in 30.8 minutes)
SF Stephen Jackson (13.7 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.7 apg in 35.3 minutes)
Atlanta receives: SF Antawn Jamison (13.7 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.3 apg in 17 games)
Change in team outlook: -6.4 ppg, -4.4 rpg, and -2.3 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Dallas and Atlanta being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Dallas and Atlanta had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

I think this trade makes since for both teams. Atlanta gets a 20+ scorer All-Star calliber SF who can get his shot off from anywhere on the court. Dallas gets a nice option at SF in Jackson off the bench. He would pretty much serve exactly like he did with the Spurs last year. A nice spot up shooter with above average defensive abilitites. Ratliff moves into the starting center position and is an instant defensive presence. Plus it dismisses all the talk about who should be starting. The roles would be better defined on this team.

I actually think Atlanta would do this deal....

Change in our lineup would be......

PG: Nash, Best
SG: Finley, Howard, Delk
SF: Walker, Jackson, Najera
PF: Nowitzki, Fortson
C: Ratliff, Bradley

IR: Daniels, TAW, Steffanson


Now I love how this team would shape up. With Ratliff and Bradley playing center it would take Nowitzki totally out of the picture at center and it would cement him at PF, where he should be. Plus we would always have a shot blocking presence down low and we have Fortson there incase of foul trouble.

Looking to next year: I would look to extend both Nash and Walker. Walker has been the team MVP so far this season and has shown us no reason why he shouldn't be looked at as a long term fit here. This should be Best's only year here. Not a knock on his game but only as a way to get Daniels more playing time here behind Nash. Both the rookies really excite me about the future once the Big 3 start to decline most notably, Nash and Finley.

I think this is one of those trades that you would like to do just to see if it will work. Jamison is really the odd man out. I like to get a big man like Ratliff but what intrigues me is Jackson. A lot of people here will say he's a spare but he's a spare will a ring and he played a key role in beating the Mavs. As a backup to Fin, he would be awesome. Big 2 guard with no drop in production.

Walkerforthree
12-02-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Walkerforthree
14 points, 9 boards, 2 steals for Okur tonight, oh, and 4-6 from the field and 6-6 from the line i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

So he had a decent game. Eddie has had better during his career. Are you saying the Eddie is better than Okur? If so why do we need Okur. If not, then it's like saying Shawn Bradley made a 3pters and was 1 for 1 shooting there for 1 game so now he should be in the 3pt contest.

BTW on 11/29/03 against the "mighty"i/expressions/rolleye.gif Washington Wizards Okur only managed 10 points and on 2 for 6 shooting and 3 rebounds in 22 minutes. He recorded no blocks, 1 steal, 2 turnovers, 3 fouls, and no assists. His only semi-redeeming value was going 6 for 8 from the line. Still very S-P-A-R-E like numbers.

How about 11/12/03 against GS. 23 minutes, 2 for 7 from the field, 1 for 2 from the line, 3 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 fouls, 1 turnover, 0 steals, 0 blocks in 23 minutes. Now if that isn't an U-G-L-Y line.

Because he's not totally worthless, Okur will come up with good games. Because he's nothing more than a spare he'll also come up with a lot of bad games. When he can produce the good games or at least average games on a 4 to 1 ratio to the bad ones then we can talk about him being not being a spare.


Sorry, but eddie's never gone 20/10 or 12/18, Okur has. Okur has solid nights usually, a few very good ones and and a few stinkers. I guess Nash going 4-18 one game makes him a spare?

SeriousSummer
12-02-2003, 03:24 PM
Personally, I think LRB needs to break out a few more categories. So far we have three:

Star
Budding Star
Spare

I think we need at least six [examples] {definition}

Superstar [Shaq, Duncan, KG] {one of the best five or ten in the league, can take over games, can get theirs every night if they need to, Dirk is a borderline superstar, Paul Pierce is out}

Star [Ray Allen, Jamison, Allen Houston] {reliable and excellent, can start for almost any team, often good for 20 points, 10 rebounds or 8 assists, depending on their position}

Player with Potential (PP for short) [Lampe, Okur, Josh Howard] {a young player who might become a star, or who might be a spare, it's too early to tell but they show something, usually obviously neither a Superstar or Filler}

Starter [Antonio Davis, Dale Davis, PJ Brown, Juwan Howard] {a valuable player, potential is maxed out and they aren't stars, but good enough to start for most teams--but not all}

Spare [Best, Najera, Mihm] {useful, at least at times in a limited role, sometimes a "one-trick pony"--rebounder or defensive or three-point specialist, think Stacey Augmon or Steve Kerr, aspire to be a starter rather than a star, most only a starter if there are injuries or your team sucks}

Filler [Sundov, Bremer, Eschmeyer] {you gotta have 12 or 15 guys on the team, aspire to be a spare, more likely to end up in Austria or the Phillippines than the all star game}

LRB
12-02-2003, 03:34 PM
No, but Nash does that very rarely. Nash has also played at an allstar level for several seasons. Okur is struggling to get to a star, not allstar, level. I never said that Eddie had a 20/10 night, just that he's had better than the example that you used.

But how many times has the Turkish Spar scored in one game this season what Jamison's average is for his career? The correct answer would be zero at this point.

Most nights Okur shoots really bad. He's only a step above sucking. It appears that he may have stamina issues. His FT % is dropping rapidly with increased minutes, a sure sign of stamina problems.

Yeah he can have some big games occasionally, but he's still a spare. An occasionally big game doesn't remove that. He's still yet to score as well as Raef has in a game or even rebound as well as Raef has. Single games don't impress me. Show me the ability to bring it over a whole season. Okur won't be there for another several months at least. Until then he's just a Spare.

LRB
12-02-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by: SeriousSummer
Personally, I think LRB needs to break out a few more categories. So far we have three:

Star
Budding Star
Spare

I think we need at least six [examples] {definition}

Superstar [Shaq, Duncan, KG] {one of the best five or ten in the league, can take over games, can get theirs every night if they need to, Dirk is a borderline superstar, Paul Pierce is out}

Star [Ray Allen, Jamison, Allen Houston] {reliable and excellent, can start for almost any team, often good for 20 points, 10 rebounds or 8 assists, depending on their position}

Player with Potential (PP for short) [Lampe, Okur, Josh Howard] {a young player who might become a star, or who might be a spare, it's too early to tell but they show something, usually obviously neither a Superstar or Filler}


Starter [Antonio Davis, Dale Davis, PJ Brown, Juwan Howard] {a valuable player, potential is maxed out and they aren't stars, but good enough to start for most teams--but not all}

Spare [Best, Najera, Mihm] {useful, at least at times in a limited role, sometimes a "one-trick pony"--rebounder or defensive or three-point specialist, think Stacey Augmon or Steve Kerr, aspire to be a starter rather than a star, most only a starter if there are injuries or your team sucks}

Filler [Sundov, Bremer, Eschmeyer] {you gotta have 12 or 15 guys on the team, aspire to be a spare, more likely to end up in Austria or the Phillippines than the all star game}

Sure you can say that a player has potential. But until that potential is realized, they're just spares. That's whay most Rooks don't get many minutes. Because they're spares, howbeit with great potential sometimes. Rarely a rook will come along who's ready to step in and play right away. But except for a few exceptional players, Rooks take at least 2 or 3 years to develop and are more likely to be a bust than a success. i.e. there's more players in the CBA, NBDL, and overseas who once were those NBA players with potential but never realized it, than guys in the league who have realized it.

That's why you don't trade Stars (guys who have realized potential) for spares(guys who haven't) as general rule and with very few exceptions.

SeriousSummer
12-02-2003, 04:49 PM
I agree normally you don't trade a star for potential (I reserve spare for guys, like Eddie, you know could never be stars and would never make the star for spare deal), but at some point the Mavericks (IMHO) are going to have to take a chance and trade one of their stars for a big man who only has potential.

Right now we've got one or two more stars than we need. But we don't have a solid, starting center and we need one. An established center would be better (in my terms I'd take a starter, if he is 28 or below), but we may have to take a chance on potential.

I don't know that Okur is the right guy, but we aren't getting Shaq or Duncan for anybody.

Maybe we should trade Jamison to Charlotte for the fourth pick in the draft (deal might need to be tweaked). But Shawn is all we have (unless you play Dirk there) and I think we could use some more help.

Walkerforthree
12-02-2003, 06:46 PM
Okur's rpg in his SECOND YEAR are higher then raef's near highest.

LRB
12-02-2003, 07:08 PM
Okur's rpg in his SECOND YEAR are higher then raef's near highest.

And his scoring, shooting, and blocked shots are less. They're not exactly the same and each has some stats that are better than the others. But even if Okur is better than Raef, and I'm far from convinced of that, that would only mean that he's better than a player that most everyone recognizes as a spare. It would be like convincing you that I'm smarter than Charles Barkley, and then trying to say I deserve a Nobel Prize because of that.

LRB
12-02-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by: SeriousSummer
I agree normally you don't trade a star for potential (I reserve spare for guys, like Eddie, you know could never be stars and would never make the star for spare deal), but at some point the Mavericks (IMHO) are going to have to take a chance and trade one of their stars for a big man who only has potential.

Right now we've got one or two more stars than we need. But we don't have a solid, starting center and we need one. An established center would be better (in my terms I'd take a starter, if he is 28 or below), but we may have to take a chance on potential.

I don't know that Okur is the right guy, but we aren't getting Shaq or Duncan for anybody.

Maybe we should trade Jamison to Charlotte for the fourth pick in the draft (deal might need to be tweaked). But Shawn is all we have (unless you play Dirk there) and I think we could use some more help.

No we only need spares at center, and we don't have to trade a star to get them. We won't get a center that is going to beat Shaq or Duncan so why bother. What we have is players that can beat the Fakers and Spurs at other positons. All we need is some spares to occupy the big guys while our start take care of business. But the spares need to be the right size, meaning 6'10" + not some of the 6'8" relative midgets that we're currently using. Size does matter when playing center in the NBA.

Dirkenstien
12-02-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: SeriousSummer
I agree normally you don't trade a star for potential (I reserve spare for guys, like Eddie, you know could never be stars and would never make the star for spare deal), but at some point the Mavericks (IMHO) are going to have to take a chance and trade one of their stars for a big man who only has potential.

Right now we've got one or two more stars than we need. But we don't have a solid, starting center and we need one. An established center would be better (in my terms I'd take a starter, if he is 28 or below), but we may have to take a chance on potential.

I don't know that Okur is the right guy, but we aren't getting Shaq or Duncan for anybody.

Maybe we should trade Jamison to Charlotte for the fourth pick in the draft (deal might need to be tweaked). But Shawn is all we have (unless you play Dirk there) and I think we could use some more help.

No we only need spares at center, and we don't have to trade a star to get them. We won't get a center that is going to beat Shaq or Duncan so why bother. What we have is players that can beat the Fakers and Spurs at other positons. All we need is some spares to occupy the big guys while our start take care of business. But the spares need to be the right size, meaning 6'10" + not some of the 6'8" relative midgets that we're currently using. Size does matter when playing center in the NBA.

I agree, all we need is some size down low that can throw their weight around, pull down some boards, provide some interior D, and atleast give the dominant big men of the league some fits. Thats all.

Walkerforthree
12-03-2003, 08:06 PM
Well what do you know??? THE SPARE Okur gets a chance to start tonight, and the 1st qtr. isn't even over and this is his line:
11 points
5-6 ft's
3-3 fg
5 boards
3 blocks
1 steal

Pretty nice line for less then a qtr, by a spare i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

LRB
12-03-2003, 08:40 PM
Get back to me when he scores fifty+ in a game. Wait Tony Delk did that and he's still a spare.

Walkerforthree
12-03-2003, 10:13 PM
17/12/5, id take that, spare or not

EricaLubarsky
12-03-2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Get back to me when he scores fifty+ in a game. Wait Tony Delk did that and he's still a spare.

hahaha LRB scores

Walkerforthree
12-03-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

Originally posted by: LRB
Get back to me when he scores fifty+ in a game. Wait Tony Delk did that and he's still a spare.

hahaha LRB scores

uh, not really. I never argued a 50 point game makes you good. Hell, tracy murray has had 50, he's a spare. However, Okur does a lot of great things and will be a very good player. Of course he won't score 50. Neither has webber or dirk. Im not saying this game makes Okur great, but it shows he can score, block, board, get to the line and play d. Just watch him play a game once in awhile.

EricaLubarsky
12-03-2003, 11:14 PM
I dont think the argument was about Okur being good- it was about him being a spare

Walkerforthree
12-03-2003, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
I dont think the argument was about Okur being good- it was about him being a spare

the argument is wether he's a spare or not. Obviously we are arguing wether he's good or a spare, lol.

jayC
12-03-2003, 11:49 PM
If you gave me theo and terry Id do it.
The mavs have a log jam at forward Dirk, Jamison, Walker,Najera, and know Howard.
If healthy ratliff can give what the mavs need an athletic 5 that can block shots and rebound.



As for Delk for Mihm you don't trade small for big so thats out.

EricaLubarsky
12-03-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by: Walkerforthree

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
I dont think the argument was about Okur being good- it was about him being a spare

the argument is wether he's a spare or not. Obviously we are arguing wether he's good or a spare, lol.

it must be nice to have your stats inflated by the most dominant rebounder in the league. I wonder what Raef could do there.
There has been way too much Pistons on TV and from what I have seen OKurs stats are good but his play is mediocre at best.

LRB
12-04-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by: Walkerforthree

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
I dont think the argument was about Okur being good- it was about him being a spare

the argument is wether he's a spare or not. Obviously we are arguing wether he's good or a spare, lol.



i/expressions/rolleye.gif

Actually no that's not it. I've never said Okur was worthless. I've only called him a spare using the definition that if you're not a star then you're a spare. He shows promise, but he also shows some weaknesses. I'm sure that he could be a very good role playing spare. It remains to see if he can step up and be a star.

When you point out a handful of games where he has decent or even good stats that doesn't remove him from spare status. He'll need a full season of star like numbers to rid himself of the spare label. Right now he has good spare numbers, but he doesn't have star numbers.

And this all started with saying that you don't trade Jamison, who is a star, for a bunch of spares which included Okur.

If you're going to argue that's fine, but please try and keep straight what you're agruing about. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

Walkerforthree
12-06-2003, 10:45 PM
lrb, you've lit a fire under Okur, another 21 so far tonight off the bench, on good shooting too.

Nash13
12-06-2003, 11:06 PM
In Walkerforthree's defense, the Pistons have for centers(Wallace, Cambell, Darko, Okur). Even when they decide to play Wallace at Power Forward, they are so deep at that position, it's hard to keep quality minutes to get quality stats.

MightyToine
12-07-2003, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by: SeriousSummer
Personally, I think LRB needs to break out a few more categories. So far we have three:

Star
Budding Star
Spare

I think we need at least six [examples] {definition}

Superstar [Shaq, Duncan, KG] {one of the best five or ten in the league, can take over games, can get theirs every night if they need to, Dirk is a borderline superstar, Paul Pierce is out}

Star [Ray Allen, Jamison, Allen Houston] {reliable and excellent, can start for almost any team, often good for 20 points, 10 rebounds or 8 assists, depending on their position}

Player with Potential (PP for short) [Lampe, Okur, Josh Howard] {a young player who might become a star, or who might be a spare, it's too early to tell but they show something, usually obviously neither a Superstar or Filler}

Starter [Antonio Davis, Dale Davis, PJ Brown, Juwan Howard] {a valuable player, potential is maxed out and they aren't stars, but good enough to start for most teams--but not all}

Spare [Best, Najera, Mihm] {useful, at least at times in a limited role, sometimes a "one-trick pony"--rebounder or defensive or three-point specialist, think Stacey Augmon or Steve Kerr, aspire to be a starter rather than a star, most only a starter if there are injuries or your team sucks}

Filler [Sundov, Bremer, Eschmeyer] {you gotta have 12 or 15 guys on the team, aspire to be a spare, more likely to end up in Austria or the Phillippines than the all star game}



serioussummer, What category does Walker fall into?