PDA

View Full Version : How About This Trade: No Trade For Awhile


Captain Disaster
12-02-2003, 08:30 PM
Since it doesn't look like any quality big men are likely to come the Mavs way because there aren't any (after you get past the few truly good big men who noone is going to trade), how long should we give this team? How about no trades? How about going after a young point guard? How about picking up a big body as well?

Dirkenstien
12-03-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Since it doesn't look like any quality big men are likely to come the Mavs way because there aren't any (after you get past the few truly good big men who noone is going to trade), how long should we give this team? How about no trades? How about going after a young point guard? How about picking up a big body as well?

Certainly the only untouchable bigs are those that are of all star caliber and obviously it is not difficult to see that we do not need an all star caliber big man to make ourselves a more competitive team. The key date is december 20th. If any type of trade should happen then it will most likely be on or beyond this date. Until then all we can do is speculate on what the mavericks need and guess what Cuban has in his bag of tricks because trade rumors messing with our players heads is the last thing Nellie and Cubes want so im sure they will be fairly discrete about any propositions suggested.

Simon2
12-03-2003, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Since it doesn't look like any quality big men are likely to come the Mavs way because there aren't any (after you get past the few truly good big men who noone is going to trade), how long should we give this team? How about no trades? How about going after a young point guard? How about picking up a big body as well?

The no trade is fine with me as the Mavs are loaded at every position except center. They should pick up another big man though to bolster the middle. A veteran who is basketball savy would be excellent.

EricaLubarsky
12-03-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Since it doesn't look like any quality big men are likely to come the Mavs way because there aren't any (after you get past the few truly good big men who noone is going to trade), how long should we give this team? How about no trades? How about going after a young point guard? How about picking up a big body as well?

smartest thing youve ever said.

If there is someone like Mihm available then we should take it, obviously.

Dirkenstien
12-03-2003, 02:58 PM
We do not "need" to trade just for the sake of making a trade, however, if we find ourselves in a situation where we have the opportunity to improve our team then we certainly take advantage of it. I do not agree with the "no trade for a while" statement for this very reason.

LRB
12-03-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by: Dirkenstien
We do not "need" to trade just for the sake of making a trade, however, if we find ourselves in a situation where we have the opportunity to improve our team then we certainly take advantage of it. I do not agree with the "no trade for a while" statement for this very reason.

There is a saying in business "It takes a great meeting to beat no meeting at all." The same can be true for trades. If we have the opportunity to do a great trade, then we should. Otherwise, we're better off with no trade.

Dirkenstien
12-03-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Dirkenstien
We do not "need" to trade just for the sake of making a trade, however, if we find ourselves in a situation where we have the opportunity to improve our team then we certainly take advantage of it. I do not agree with the "no trade for a while" statement for this very reason.

There is a saying in business "It takes a great meeting to beat no meeting at all." The same can be true for trades. If we have the opportunity to do a great trade, then we should. Otherwise, we're better off with no trade.

It wouldnt even have to be a great trade, just one that would address and improve our most glaring weakness while not giving up too much at the same time.

uberfan
12-03-2003, 03:37 PM
I can live with the no trade plan until first week of Jan, then take another look. However, all possibilities should be explored in the meantime.

Because I do not think you can get Duncan or Shaq for one of the big 5 and change, I say no one else who can/will play center is worthy of the big 5.

For me, the "untouchables" the rest of this season are Dirk, Steve, Michael, Antwan, Antoine, Josh, and Bradley. Bradley because I do not see anyone available that can bring more than Bradley does for what his contract cost us.

I keep either Najera or Fortson if possible (prefer to keep Najera). The other one I would try and package if it gets some of equal ability but taller.

I like Best and Delk for what they can/will bring to them team but would include them in any package to get better.

My "wish list" is predicated on not giving up much and the type of player we might be able to get, not necessarily what I would hope to get if I could have whoever I wanted.

From the Pacers I would like to take a shot at getting Tinsley and Ugly (Pollard) for what we have to give up. Haven't checked RealGm so don't know what it would take.

Portland has a few players available but not sure I would give up what they want in return.

I would like to see Ely from the Clippers.

Of course, Minh and Diop would be nice additions, both for now and in the future.

I am still sold on Jasmison and I like the potential I see from Walker in the mix with this team.

I jsut wish we had another 6"10'' and up guy who could play 25 minutes at the 5.

LRB
12-03-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by: Dirkenstien

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Dirkenstien
We do not "need" to trade just for the sake of making a trade, however, if we find ourselves in a situation where we have the opportunity to improve our team then we certainly take advantage of it. I do not agree with the "no trade for a while" statement for this very reason.

There is a saying in business "It takes a great meeting to beat no meeting at all." The same can be true for trades. If we have the opportunity to do a great trade, then we should. Otherwise, we're better off with no trade.

It wouldnt even have to be a great trade, just one that would address and improve our most glaring weakness while not giving up too much at the same time.


But wouldn't that be a great trade? ie Tony Delk for Mihm. We don't give up anything that costs us much since we have plenty of talent to take up any slack at the postions that Tony was playing. We get a decent player, not a great one but decent, at a position that we're really short. That would be a great trade IMO.

Now if we want to do a trade like one with Atlanta where we send Jamison and Bradley for Shareef and Ratliff. Then even if you consider that a talent upgrade, it's still leaves us short at center and isn't enough to justify a trade. (BTW IMO that trade makes us worse talent wise)

Dirkenstien
12-03-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Dirkenstien

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Dirkenstien
We do not "need" to trade just for the sake of making a trade, however, if we find ourselves in a situation where we have the opportunity to improve our team then we certainly take advantage of it. I do not agree with the "no trade for a while" statement for this very reason.

There is a saying in business "It takes a great meeting to beat no meeting at all." The same can be true for trades. If we have the opportunity to do a great trade, then we should. Otherwise, we're better off with no trade.

It wouldnt even have to be a great trade, just one that would address and improve our most glaring weakness while not giving up too much at the same time.


But wouldn't that be a great trade? ie Tony Delk for Mihm. We don't give up anything that costs us much since we have plenty of talent to take up any slack at the postions that Tony was playing. We get a decent player, not a great one but decent, at a position that we're really short. That would be a great trade IMO.

Now if we want to do a trade like one with Atlanta where we send Jamison and Bradley for Shareef and Ratliff. Then even if you consider that a talent upgrade, it's still leaves us short at center and isn't enough to justify a trade. (BTW IMO that trade makes us worse talent wise)

It would be a very good trade for the mavericks if we made the Delk for Mihm, however this is not one that may be classified as great ,atleast not right away, because Mihm may not be the answer, but he absolutely could help.

MikeB
12-04-2003, 01:21 AM
With Diop hurt I don't see how Cleveland could afford to move Mihm now....unless he is included with Rickey Davis. Kind of a Raef-NVE deal...if you want Mihm then you gotta take Rickey.

LRB
12-04-2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by: Dirkenstien

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Dirkenstien

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: Dirkenstien
We do not "need" to trade just for the sake of making a trade, however, if we find ourselves in a situation where we have the opportunity to improve our team then we certainly take advantage of it. I do not agree with the "no trade for a while" statement for this very reason.

There is a saying in business "It takes a great meeting to beat no meeting at all." The same can be true for trades. If we have the opportunity to do a great trade, then we should. Otherwise, we're better off with no trade.

It wouldnt even have to be a great trade, just one that would address and improve our most glaring weakness while not giving up too much at the same time.


But wouldn't that be a great trade? ie Tony Delk for Mihm. We don't give up anything that costs us much since we have plenty of talent to take up any slack at the postions that Tony was playing. We get a decent player, not a great one but decent, at a position that we're really short. That would be a great trade IMO.

Now if we want to do a trade like one with Atlanta where we send Jamison and Bradley for Shareef and Ratliff. Then even if you consider that a talent upgrade, it's still leaves us short at center and isn't enough to justify a trade. (BTW IMO that trade makes us worse talent wise)

It would be a very good trade for the mavericks if we made the Delk for Mihm, however this is not one that may be classified as great ,atleast not right away, because Mihm may not be the answer, but he absolutely could help.

Mihm doesn't have to be the answer. All he has to be is a decent spare who is 7' tall. We know he's 7' tall. And he's been playing more than decent for a spare so far this year. Plus we risk very little. We lose a spare SG a position where we have talent out the wazoo. Actually loosing Delk would help the Mavs. It gives Nellie less opportunities to play small ball. It would put Fin less at the 3 where he is much less effective. Delk is quickly becoming a black hole. I love his defense and hustle, but his shot selection is leaving something to be desired. Also Delk is taking minutes away from Howard and Daniels. I would like to see if we can get those two enough minutes so that they can contribute in the playoffs. Both have the potential to be better players than Delk because of their size. I would argue that Howard already is a better player than Delk. So the Mavs bet almost nothing and have the chance to get what they most need, a decent spare center. This is about a great a trade as could realistically have a possiblity of being made. Sure if we could trade TAW and the Potato for Shaq or Kobe it would be better, but we all know that just won't happen. Delk for Mihm is unlikely, but possible.

uberfan
12-04-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by: MikeB
With Diop hurt I don't see how Cleveland could afford to move Mihm now....unless he is included with Rickey Davis. Kind of a Raef-NVE deal...if you want Mihm then you gotta take Rickey.

Here you go. I would do this deal. Rick Davis just gives us a better trade chip later. Of course, we have to wait until Dec. 22 I think because of Delk's status.

Cleveland trades: PF Chris Mihm (7.9 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 18.2 minutes)
SF Ricky Davis (16.5 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.9 apg in 37.2 minutes)
Cleveland receives: PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 0.8 apg in 21.1 minutes)
PF Danny Fortson (2.8 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 0.0 apg in 11.8 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -12.6 ppg, -3.9 rpg, and -4.6 apg.

Dallas trades: PG Tony Delk (9.0 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 0.8 apg in 21.1 minutes)
PF Danny Fortson (2.8 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 0.0 apg in 11.8 minutes)
Dallas receives: PF Chris Mihm (7.9 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 0.5 apg in 18 games)
SF Ricky Davis (16.5 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.9 apg in 18 games)
Change in team outlook: +12.6 ppg, +3.9 rpg, and +4.6 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

LRB
12-04-2003, 03:10 PM
Uberfan I'd do that in a heart beat. I'd also turn around and try and trade away Ricky Davis at the 1st opportunity. But worst case we're only stuck with his big salary for the rest of the year, and there's always room on the IR. Delk and the Potato for Mihm is still a good deal talent wise. Both Delk and the Potato are undersized for the positions we need them to play. Mihm isn't. Mihm fulfills a need. Neither the Potato or Delk does. And who knows, we might be able to get something trading Ricky Davis' sorry ass.

uberfan
12-04-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Uberfan I'd do that in a heart beat. I'd also turn around and try and trade away Ricky Davis at the 1st opportunity. But worst case we're only stuck with his big salary for the rest of the year, and there's always room on the IR. Delk and the Potato for Mihm is still a good deal talent wise. Both Delk and the Potato are undersized for the positions we need them to play. Mihm isn't. Mihm fulfills a need. Neither the Potato or Delk does. And who knows, we might be able to get something trading Ricky Davis' sorry ass.

Delk and Fotson can help Cleveland. With Mihm gone Cavs are undermanned at PF. Fortson helps there. Delk plays a little PG for Cavs and let wonderboy play SG.

ZYou could do a 3-way and include Knicks. Davis goes to NY and we take back Doleac and Othella Harrington.

So we trade Delk and Fortson and end up with Mihm, Harrington, Doleac. Takes care of our front line pretty good this year. Mihm, Bradley, Doeac at the 5. Backups of Harrington at C/PF. Najera at C/PF/SF.

Only problem is that it pushes Daniels to IR.

Cleveland get Delk and Fortson.

Knicks get Davis as a swingman SG/SF.

However, I think I wouldn't mind having Davis here for awhile. Nellie could play him at the 3 the times he insist on Fin playing the 2. Or he could force Nellie to leave Fin at 2 and use Davis at the 3 at times. Anyway, Davis is young with enough talent and decent enough contract to move later for a younger PG to develop if they do not see Daniels as a future PG.

LRB
12-04-2003, 05:13 PM
Uber I like the 3way, and New York is definitely dumb or crazy enough to do it if Cleveland is. But I'd keep Daniels active and look to place a big on the IR. I'd like to have at least 5 guys who can legitimately play guard. Especially when 3 of them can play the 3. And Daniels can be our 3rd option at PG as well. I'd probably but Harrington or Najera on the IR. PF and SF we already have a backlog at, and I really don't want either of those 2 playing the 5. I'd probably go with Harrington because he doesn't know the Mavs schemas as Eddie does.

Cybertx
12-04-2003, 05:17 PM

Cybertx
12-04-2003, 05:19 PM
What do we need to give to get yao?

LRB
12-04-2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by: Cybertx
What do we need to give to get yao?


A miracle.

Cybertx
12-04-2003, 05:46 PM
lol yea i now houston it's a good team but we have 6 star players, let's say dirk and nash are out of the picture.

We need dirk and the have a great PG, they have cato which it's a good center probably the SF pos. need somebody which we have more than enough in that one.

Still it's complicated to get yao?

Another question it's sure than Walker it's gonna max out it's contract this year can we afford him and Nash together?

Dirkenstien
12-04-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by: Cybertx
What do we need to give to get yao?

wont happen

LRB
12-04-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by: Cybertx
lol yea i now houston it's a good team but we have 6 star players, let's say dirk and nash are out of the picture.

We need dirk and the have a great PG, they have cato which it's a good center probably the SF pos. need somebody which we have more than enough in that one.

Still it's complicated to get yao?

Another question it's sure than Walker it's gonna max out it's contract this year can we afford him and Nash together?

It would take Dirk and probably another of the Big 5 to get Yao. That's a bad trade for us and we can kiss our title hopes goodbye for this year. And Houston still probably doesn't do that trade.

We're already over the cap so what does money matter? It's not like Cubes is going bankrupt. This question makes no sense to me.

The Buddha
12-05-2003, 10:47 AM
It is strange to be writing this just after the blowout last night in LA, but I still contend that no trade is necessary now. The Mavs have the potential to dominate any team in the league, except the Lakers, with the players they have. The fact is there is only one Shaq, and there is no Shaq-stopper out there. This has been the case for years, and nothing has changed this year. Why, then, should the Mavs look to trade away players that make them dominant against any team in the league in search of one hypothetical and non-existent Shaq-stopper. Getting wins and home court advantage are more of a priority now than beating the Lakers in the regular season. I just don't see the logic in trying to build a team to beat one particular other team. I would rather have a team that competes across the board. Later, closer to Feb. the Mavs might look for a player that can pester Shaq, but not by giving up key personel.

Cybertx
12-05-2003, 03:18 PM
It would take Dirk and probably another of the Big 5 to get Yao. That's a bad trade for us and we can kiss our title hopes goodbye for this year. And Houston still probably doesn't do that trade.

let's say you offer 2 of your big 5 except dirk you can offer walker and finley for yao or walker and jamisson it's very good and houston needs a SF and they suspended his PF so thewill get 2 start players mavs can play dirk in 4 finley in 3 which i still don't understand it and howard/delk in 2.

Yes they have big contracts, yes houston needs to put another player to be possible.

We don't have 5 big we have 6, we can leave with just 4 big.

We don't need somebody to stop shaq, we need somebody to stop the pass over the head of our center

sike
12-05-2003, 05:54 PM
We don't need somebody to stop shaq, we need somebody to stop the pass over the head of our center

CENTER??!!.....hey when did they get one of those?....alright!!!

LRB
12-05-2003, 08:38 PM
I say we trade for a big guy whole will be designated to continuously bitch slap Nellie the next time he thinks of starting Tony "Too Damned Short" Delk until Nellie rethinks the issue. This guy should have lots of stamina.

jimmychipwood
12-06-2003, 11:08 AM
Yeah, I was at the Lakers/Mavs the other night, and didn't have a clue why Nellie started 3 guards and two forwards. It just seems like Nelly has given up before the game has even begun. He looks at the other team and say, "There is no way playing our best player at each position (1-5) could beat that team, so we have to go to the totally opposite of what their strengths are, to throw them off, and hope for the best."

I do believe that if we had a physical big guy, like a Kenyon Martin, and we started him, Dirk, Jamison, Fin, and Nash, we would have a team that could beat any in the league, including the Lakers...and as you can see, without a dominant center, Martin is more of a power forward.

But I am also convinced, that if we had those players available, Nelly would still start Nash, Delk, Fin, Walker, and Dirk, leaving Jamison and Martin on the bench.

sike
12-06-2003, 11:53 AM
you can almost see Nellie in a dark room somewhere wringing his hands saying "I really am smarter than the rest" over and over and over!...that is the only way you can come to the conclusion that starting the lineup he started the other night was anything less than playing a fool's hand!

Mavs Rule
12-06-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by: jimmychipwood:
Yeah, I was at the Lakers/Mavs the other night, and didn't have a clue why Nellie started 3 guards and two forwards.

It is incomprehensible that Nellie starts games this way. His smallball fetish is getting to the point of insanity. In Nellie's delusions, his reasoning based on what little whistle said the other day is this: "We have to have some aces up our sleeves for late in the game when the game is decided." His fallacy is that if we start many games in a hole down by 10 to 15, sometimes against the good teams it is tough to make that difference up. How many games against the lakers do we seem like we tank immediately after the tip? The main cause is Nellie's inexplicable starting lineups (along with his pregame surrendur).

Last year with our offense flowing smoothly you could maybe get away with these crazy starting lineups. This year you cannot! We don't have the offensive explosiveness that we had last year. It might come at some point, but until then Nellie needs to listen to reason and start our big five (or four + Bradley) at least against the good teams.