PDA

View Full Version : Ratliff and Terry to Dallas


akaarod03
01-18-2004, 10:54 AM
I'm kinda getting tired-head from all these rumors from Portland involving Rasheed Wallace. Would I have loved to get Wallace on this team? Absolutely. I just didnt want to give up Jamison. I would have preffered to give Walker...but Portland wasnt interested. A team that I think would be interested in Walker's services is Atlanta. Just for the sheer fact that his contract is up next year. This is a team in disarray. To my knowledge, their team sale is still pending...so I don't know if they can make trades or not. Going under the assumption that they can pull the trigger...does this trade jazz you from a Mavs perspective?

Dallas trades Antoine Walker, Tony Delk, cash, and future draft pick (1st or 2nd)

Dallas receives Jason Terry, Theo Ratliff, and Obina Ekezie (thrown in for salary cap reasons)

Atlanta from a talent perspective gets a really good player in Walker. I mean this isnt like the Terrell Brandon for Glenn Robinson trade that they did earlier in the summer. They get a legitmate player in Walker. They get big salary cap relief next year. It's clear that Ratliff and Terry want out. Ratliff is owed a boatload of money next year...more than Walker...I think close to Wallace's salary of 17 million. Terry's salary goes up big-time as well. I think they would like to unload those players if they can.

Dallas gets a grunt-like player in Ratliff and a solid backup PG, an NVE type in Terry. Look at the balance on our roster:

PF Nowitski Fortson
SF Howard Jamison/Najera
C Ratliff Bradley/Fortson
PG Nash Terry/Best
SG Finley Howard/Daniels

I like that roster a lot.

Abe

Mavs Rule
01-18-2004, 11:11 AM
I think that KG Vet posted a trade very similar to this one earlier this year. It was my favorite trade of all the reasonable trades that have been proposed in this forum. Ratliff's shot blocking and Terry as a backup to Nash is very enticing. I think our team would be back in the elite group of the four western powers with this trade, and would have a good chance to win it all THIS YEAR.

V
01-18-2004, 11:45 AM
Three problems with this deal in my opinion

1. Bradley/Fortson combo provides a superior stat line to Ratliff in fewer minutes. Ratliff is a good shotblocker & decent rebounder; Bradley is better blocker & Fortson rebounds better. Ratliff provides nothing offensively.

2. Terry is a scorer. We have plenty of those.

3. Atlanta won't do any deals until the sale of the team is complete.

V
01-18-2004, 12:16 PM
Hmm... This is Vescey talking but maybe I should stand corrected on item #3 as "Atlanta sources disclose the Hawks' incoming owners (who should be in place shortly after the Nets' arena in Brooklyn is finished) have ordered GM Billy Knight to dump as much salary as possible mucho pronto."

Tough to say if there's any truth to this quote. As with anything that comes out of the NY papers we should probably wait for the story to be corroborated by a more reliable source before we get back on the Ratliff / Terry bandwagon.

Dirkenstien
01-18-2004, 12:24 PM
I really dont like this trade. Walker is beginning to become comfortable with his role onthis team and aslong as he is doing so then he is extremely valuable to us by creating neccessary matchups and throwing out dimes. Also, Best is really starting to come a live and right now im fine with our rotation as is. No trade for me

Mavs Rule
01-18-2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by: V
Three problems with this deal in my opinion

1. Bradley/Fortson combo provides a superior stat line to Ratliff in fewer minutes. Ratliff is a good shotblocker & decent rebounder; Bradley is better blocker & Fortson rebounds better. Ratliff provides nothing offensively.

Fortson is the best in the league at rebounds/48 min. But does Nellie play him? No, because he is too short to defend well enough against other big men. Bradley does block well, but loses way too many rebounds to make him fully effective on the court. Plus for every block he has, he lets others just stroll right in to the bucket UNTOUCHED, for a dunk. Ratliff is more consistent at both blocks and rebounds than Bradley or Fortson would be.


2. Terry is a scorer. We have plenty of those.

Terry has a very nice balance between assists and scoring (5,16), which we could use when Nash is out of the game. We wouldn't have to play the big three so many minutes if we had him. If we continue to play these guys this heavy, they will have nothing left at the end of the season. Plus if Nash ever went down for an extended period or in the playoffs, we would be toast, but not if we had Terry. Best has had a couple good games, but he is not on Terry's level.


3. Atlanta won't do any deals until the sale of the team is complete.

Who knows on this one.

Max Power
01-18-2004, 02:05 PM
op - maybe if you started to use the flamethrower picture for every Atlanta trade then MAYBE everyone would get the hint that Atlanta is handcuffed from making a move.

V
01-18-2004, 02:25 PM
Nice reply Mavs Rule... hard to debate your points. That said, I don't think Ratliff presents a "significant upgrade" over Bradley / Fortson... and I think Best is doing just fine. I wouldn't make this move just to shake things up. Definately wouldn't give up one of our forwards for an overpaid shotblocker & a guy anyone could have had late in free agency last summer.

Jamisonite
01-18-2004, 02:59 PM
I dont like this trade...walker is coming into his own and so is best...the last thing we need is a shoot first PG.

Dirkenstien
01-18-2004, 03:23 PM
If atlanta threw in their 1st round draft pick then i may consider it

LRB
01-18-2004, 04:34 PM
Sorry, Atlanta just doesn't have anyone who excites me. I'd pass because I think we could do better else where.

OutletPass
01-18-2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Max:
op - maybe if you started to use the flamethrower picture for every Atlanta trade then MAYBE everyone would get the hint that Atlanta is handcuffed from making a move.

--I may resort to that Max...it's justamazing how strange people can be.... Look at the article posted above....it says: "The incoming owners HAVE ORDERED..." ....

THAT'S RIDICULOUS.....What happens if they sale is not approved ?


http://www.watsonsweapons.com/gallery/images/flamethrower.jpg

akaarod03
01-19-2004, 11:38 AM
From ESPN Insider:

Terry has been pushing Hawks management to make a trade, even if he has to be included in it. Plenty of teams are interested, but Terry is a base-year compensation player, making a one-for-one swap virtually impossible. Unless he's paired up with someone like Theo Ratliff or Shareef Abdur-Rahim in a blockbuster-type trade, Terry's going to have to ride out the storm in Atlanta.

Ratliff's ongoing feud with coach Terry Stotts has put him in the crosshairs. There's talk the Blazers want Ratliff and would be willing to swap Rasheed Wallace for him if the Hawks also included Terry. Terry is a base-year player, which makes that trade more difficult, but it is doable with the right add-ons. The Grizzlies also have interest in Ratliff, but they're running out of ammo to get him. A combo of Stromile Swift, Jake Tsakalidis and Shane Battier might be enough, but is the injury-prone Ratliff really worth that price?

So once again...Walker for Ratilff and Terry? I would do it.

Jamisonite
01-19-2004, 11:43 AM
first of all...salaries dont work...second of all ATL wudnt do it

akaarod03
01-19-2004, 11:50 AM
"first of all...salaries dont work...second of all ATL wudnt do it"

yes it does...salaries do match...walker, delk, cash, and future draft pick for ratliff, terry, and ekezie works

atlanta doesnt do it? are you sure about that? both ratliff and terry want out. both ratliff and terry are owed a combined 27 million next year. walker and delk are owed a combined 16 million and both of their contracts are up next year as well. i think atlanta would do it in a second. do i need to remind you of the failed glenn robinson for terrell brandon trade? they want salary cap space.

Jamisonite
01-19-2004, 12:03 PM
*i had ratliff and SARs contracts mixed up

i still dont do the deal though...we dont need terry

madape
01-19-2004, 01:18 PM
THIS IS THE BULLSHIT POLICE - MAVS RULE, PLEASE PULL OVER. YOU HAVE BEEN SPOTTED SPOUTING UNINFORMED BULLSHIT. HOW DO YOU PLEAD?

Lets put this myth of Bradley being a poor rebounder to bed. Last year he averaged 13.1 rebounds per 48 minutes, which was good enough to rank him in the top 20. Ratliff did not average close to that rate last year, pulling in just 11.6 rebounds per 48 minutes.

In fact, Bradley was only one of two players in the entire league last year to average over 13.1 rebounds per 48 minutes, and over 5 blocks per 48 minutes.

These kinds of numbers are not out of the norm for Bradley. In fact, he has averaged over 13 boards per 48 seven times in his career. Ratliff has never come close. The best year Ratliff ever had, he averaged just a shade over 12... but that was 6 years ago. Since then, he's been grabbing at an anemic rate of 11.2. You'd have to play him 43 minutes, just to get 10 rebounds!

So your suggestion that Ratliff is a better rebounder than Bradley is completely wrong.

Mavs Rule
01-19-2004, 09:07 PM
Madape, if you are the bullshit police, then I am Rodney King taking some bullshit abuse! i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif We all know you have some serious man-love for Bradley, but please take off the rose colored shades. i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif Why do you insist on living in the past with Bradley? i/expressions/clock.gif

First of all, all the 48 minute stats don't mean much when he cannot play near the minutes that Ratliff does. We all know Shawn becomes less and less effective the longer he stays on the floor. Ratliff has averaged 31 minutes for this year and last and started all games but one. Shawn has averaged 18 over that period, and started only five games this year because of injuries, out of shape, playing poorly, etc.. Shawn has also been playing mainly against the second teamers and is still getting outrebounded by Ratliff this year who plays against starters, whether you look at the 48 min stats or straight up.

I would rather have a guy like Ratliff starting, that is going to show up EVERY night, than someone who you don't know if they will be motivated that evening. This said, I am NOT anti-Bradley. I think he is great as a second teamer, but not a starter. With Ratliff ranking #1 in the NBA in Blocks Per Game(3.12), #1 in the NBA in Blocks(128.0), and #3 in the NBA in Blocks Per 48 Minutes(4.93), he is a force that can be relied on 31 minutes every night for some lane presence that is sorely needed. I think most would agree that Ratliff would start ahead of Bradley.

The trade would be good for the mavs, not only because we would add a force in the middle and have a major insurance package at PG, but we would add by subtraction if you know what I mean. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

madape
01-20-2004, 08:47 AM
I'm not arguing the fact that Ratliff is a good shotblocker. He is. What I'm arguing is your ridiculous statement that he is a good rebounder. He's not. He's terrible. He's one of the worst rebounding centers in the league. I don't care if he plays over 30 minutes a game. He can only scrape up 6.8 rebounds in those 30 minutes! That's BAD! It's unacceptable. It's deplorable.

Last year, Shawn grabbed 5.9 boards per game, almost as many as Ratliff, but he did it in only 21 minutes. Ratliff averaged less than one rebound better than Shawn, but he needed almost ten minutes to get that extra rebound! You can argue all you want about whether Shawn can play those extra ten minutes due to fatigue, fouls, whatever. I think that argument is a load of crap, too. Shawn's most productive seasons have been those in which he's played over 30 minutes agaim. But even if we beleive the bullshit, and accept the fairy tale that Shawn can't play 30 minutes, at least we know that the Mavs could take Shawn's 20 minutes of production PLUS some other scrub's ten minutes, and the combined rebounding numbers would dwarf Ratliff's numbers in 30 minutes. Put Mamadou N'yai out there for thirty minutes. I bet he'd get better shotblocking and rebounding numbers than Ratliff. Hell, Theo Ratliff IS Mamadou N'Dyai, just with a little more hype. A modern day Lorenzo Williams, who somehow garnered the respect of the masses.

Mavs Rule
01-20-2004, 10:06 AM
Well if that's what you are arguing, then you misread my post, because I NEVER said that Ratliff was a good rebounder. This is what I said "Ratliff is more consistent at both blocks and rebounds than Bradley or Fortson would be." In other words, he is better than Bradley or Fortson at bringing more "rebounds AND blocks" than either rebound specialist Fortson or blocking specialist Bradley, and can do it for longer periods of time. Therefore, he would be an upgrade over who we have, and would relegate Bradley and Fortson to backups.

LRB
01-20-2004, 10:18 AM
I would rather have a guy like Ratliff starting, that is going to show up EVERY night,

News flash, Ratliff does not show up every game. And as Ape has said, Ratliff would hurt us rebounding wise. Shawn would give us more blocks and more rebounds playing the same minutes. For some reason Nellie refuse to play Shawn often and give him substantial minutes. It's not because he isn't producing, because he is. Sure Shawn will have an off game, as does any player. But he's been extremely consistent the last two seasons at producing when given time.

Mavs Rule
01-20-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by: LRB

I would rather have a guy like Ratliff starting, that is going to show up EVERY night,

News flash, Ratliff does not show up every game. And as Ape has said, Ratliff would hurt us rebounding wise. Shawn would give us more blocks and more rebounds playing the same minutes. For some reason Nellie refuse to play Shawn often and give him substantial minutes. It's not because he isn't producing, because he is. Sure Shawn will have an off game, as does any player. But he's been extremely consistent the last two seasons at producing when given time.


News flash, Ratliff shows up more often than Bradley. As I already mentioned, Ratliff is outrebounding Bradley THIS YEAR on a per minute basis. Bradley deteriorates over time because of lack of conditioning. I like Bradley for what he does, but the view that he would be more valuable than Ratliff is homerism IMO.

madape
01-20-2004, 11:22 AM
News flash, Ratliff shows up more often than Bradley. As I already mentioned, Ratliff is outrebounding Bradley THIS YEAR on a per minute basis. Bradley deteriorates over time because of lack of conditioning. I like Bradley for what he does, but the view that he would be more valuable than Ratliff is homerism IMO.

Bradley came to camp in poor condition this year. But having knee surgery that keeps you from running for a couple of months will do that to a 7'6" man! Throw debilitating back spasms into the picture that repeatedly left him crumpled in a heap on the floor and is it any wonder he can't last longer than 15 minutes without getting winded? I think Bradley should be allowed to play himself back into shape. A well conditioned Shawn will trounce Ratliff's productivity, and there is no reason to think Shawn CAN'T improve his stamina by the time the playoffs come around. Shawn has played big minutes several times in his career with great results. In fact, the more he plays, the bigger his impact.

Plus, I think it's a little ridiculous to trump up Theo Ratliff's conditioning. This is a man who has missed more games due to injuries in the past three years than Shawn Bradley has in his whole entire career. Consistent? Yes. Ratliff is consistently hurt. And when he's not hurt, he's consistently bad on the boards.

LRB
01-20-2004, 12:15 PM
I totally agree with what the Ape has said. I'd also add that I don't think that Ratliff would endure as well or be near as consistent as he has been in the past, which isn't really that good, in Nellie's system. How would he take playing one game 30 minutes and then getting 2 DNP CD's right after that? I don't think very well.

As for consitentency, when over the last two season has Shawn shown great inconsistency. I'm not talking about a bad game every once in a while, but on a regular basis. When has this happened?

Mavs Rule
01-20-2004, 01:06 PM
Good point LRB about Ratliff finding it difficult in Nellie's system. That could very well be the case, as it is usually with all big men that Nellie has had. As far as consistency goes, Bradley was very good last year most of the year, but toward the end of the season he faded badly. Just when we needed him too. Its no wonder our record suffered toward the end of the regular season. Of course Finley was injured, but Nellie played Bradley less and less as the season went on. Now I believe that was a bad coaching decision, as I think Bradley is underutilized at times. But you have to admit that Bradley's efficiency faded after the first half of the season.

Mavs Rule
01-20-2004, 01:18 PM
Good point Ape on Ratliff's injury problems. That would be the downside to the trade. Of course all trades are a risk, but if Ratliff is healthy, I like the trade.

Poindexter Einstein
01-20-2004, 03:20 PM
AKAAROD - you said "walker, delk, cash, and future draft pick for ratliff, terry, and ekezie works

atlanta doesnt do it? are you sure about that? both ratliff and terry want out. both ratliff and terry are owed a combined 27 million next year"

I like the trade idea, but I am not sure I would include the draft pick.

However, Atlanta may like the talent swap (they could put Mohammed on the court rather than Ratliff, and they then have added Walker) ...but your money figures are WAYYYYYYYYY off. Ratliff gets about 11 next year, and Terry gets about 7.8 (i think) ..total about $18.75M. Walker + Delk will get about $17.75M. I doubt that is a big enough difference to give them a money incentive - though they may see it as a talent help.

EricaLubarsky
01-21-2004, 11:18 AM
http://www.watsonsweapons.com/gallery/images/flamethrower.jpg

swoosh.

jayC
01-24-2004, 11:44 PM
Total greatness, Erica, and Madape. Bradley has been playing like a beast as of late. Hes not deke but he sure isn't sliced ham. The guy should have like 10 blocks the last two games. The fact that Dirk said that Bradley can dominate on the defensive end speaks volumes. Dirk who dominates offensively and is a much improved defensive player over the years.

Id much rather Wallace then BigZ or Ratliff or Terry. At least Wallace has been to the WCF, hes been a sixth man. And he flat out knows how to win. Hes played for one of the greatest coaches in basketball under Dean Smith.

MikeB
01-24-2004, 11:58 PM
Plus, I think it's a little ridiculous to trump up Theo Ratliff's conditioning. This is a man who has missed more games due to injuries in the past three years than Shawn Bradley has in his whole entire career. Consistent? Yes. Ratliff is consistently hurt. And when he's not hurt, he's consistently bad on the boards.

OK mad...we all know Ratliff was injured...but that was in 2000 and 2001. He has played 125 out of 126 possible games in the last year and a half. So that qualifies as pretty good i/expressions/rolleye.gif
I understand that you are a Bradley fan but don't try to use propaganda to make your point. Ratliff is healthy and could help our team...but I am not in favor of moving either of the Toine twins to get him. I think if Nellie will just play Shawn enough consistant minutes he will help us enough to be scary good for the rest of the season and into the playoffs.

Ratliff's stats:
Year Team G Min M A Pct M A Pct M A Pct Off Def Tot Ast TO Stl Blk PF PPG
2002 ATL 81 31.1 3.4 7.3 46.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.6 72.0 1.9 5.6 7.5 0.9 1.7 0.7 3.2 3.4 8.7
2003 ATL 44 30.7 3.1 6.8 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.9 64.8 1.9 5.0 6.9 0.9 1.6 0.6 3.0 3.6 8.1
Career 518 27.4 3.3 6.7 49.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.0 72.1 2.1 4.2 6.3 0.6 1.5 0.6 2.7 3.1 8.8

madape
01-25-2004, 09:40 AM
Sure, Ratliff would be a great addition if we got him for nothing. In my opinion, our biggest need right now is another shotblocker at the five to suppliment Shawn and Fort. However, I like the way our team is playing. Any deal for Ratliff would certainly require one of the Toines. That trade isn't even close to meriting consideration.

MikeB
01-25-2004, 10:15 AM
I agree. I don't want to blow up the team just as they are getting comfortable with their roles. If we aren't able to get another big man through trade then we should definitely look at either keeping N'Diaye or getting someone else from the NBDL or CBA to be the backup shotblocker.

Mavs Rule
04-08-2004, 12:35 AM
Its very humorous to review this thread and read all of the opinions of the "familiar" posters that were way off on the eventual value of Walker. This trade would have been a steal for us. Others thought that Atlanta was not in play because of their ownership transfer ... wrong again!

Ratliff just had eight blocks tonight against the Warriors and he has been averaging five blocks since the trade. Since the trade Portland has held opponents to 41% shooting. You think the mavs could have used some of that defensive help? Its amazing how so many were fooled by Walker's "versatility" early on.

Max Power
04-08-2004, 01:24 AM
What a strange bump. Atlanta made a trade for expiring contracts - something that Walker does not have. So there is no possibility that they would have made the trade with us.

madape
04-08-2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by: Mavs Rule
Its very humorous to review this thread and read all of the opinions of the "familiar" posters that were way off on the eventual value of Walker. This trade would have been a steal for us. Others thought that Atlanta was not in play because of their ownership transfer ... wrong again!

Ratliff just had eight blocks tonight against the Warriors and he has been averaging five blocks since the trade. Since the trade Portland has held opponents to 41% shooting. You think the mavs could have used some of that defensive help? Its amazing how so many were fooled by Walker's "versatility" early on.

I'd still rather go with what we've got. Ratliff is not a better shotblocker than Shawn. He's not a better rebounder or jumpshooter. Sorry, but I'll go with the small-ball lineup with the Bradley battering ram before I'd plant a third rate center like Ratliff into the rotation for 30 minutes a game.

kg_veteran
04-08-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by: madape

Originally posted by: Mavs Rule
Its very humorous to review this thread and read all of the opinions of the "familiar" posters that were way off on the eventual value of Walker. This trade would have been a steal for us. Others thought that Atlanta was not in play because of their ownership transfer ... wrong again!

Ratliff just had eight blocks tonight against the Warriors and he has been averaging five blocks since the trade. Since the trade Portland has held opponents to 41% shooting. You think the mavs could have used some of that defensive help? Its amazing how so many were fooled by Walker's "versatility" early on.

I'd still rather go with what we've got. Ratliff is not a better shotblocker than Shawn. He's not a better rebounder or jumpshooter. Sorry, but I'll go with the small-ball lineup with the Bradley battering ram before I'd plant a third rate center like Ratliff into the rotation for 30 minutes a game.


Exactly.

Mavs Rule
04-08-2004, 11:33 AM
Change of heart KG? ... or is it the old guard is trying to back one another? i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif


Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Saw this on LMF and found it interesting, so I thought I'd post it for comments...

Dallas trades Antoine Walker and Tony Delk to Atlanta for Theo Ratliff and Jason Terry.

For the record, I don't think Atlanta would do it, but here's the new lineup with suggested minutes and rotation if they did:

C - Ratliff 25 - Bradley/Fortson 23
PF - Nowitzki 38 - Jamison 10
SF - Jamison 25 - Howard 23
SG - Finley 33 - Terry 15
PG - Nash 32 - Terry 16

Positives: We'd add a great shotblocker and would have enough big bodies to keep Nowitzki out of the pivot for extended minutes; we'd have a fantastic, albeit undersized, three guard rotation; we'd have a nice balance of offense, defense, and rebounding.

Negatives: We lose out on Walker, a multi-talented forward.

kg_veteran
04-08-2004, 12:03 PM
I guess I have had a change of heart. We don't even play the shotblocker we have, and I think there's the possibility that we can get more for Walker than a 31 year old one-dimensional shotblocker who isn't as good as the one we have.

dalmations202
04-08-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I guess I have had a change of heart. We don't even play the shotblocker we have, and I think there's the possibility that we can get more for Walker than a 31 year old one-dimensional shotblocker who isn't as good as the one we have.

in your opinion, what would be the most realistic person/people we can get for Walker, that will work for the Mavs, and the other team ?

kg_veteran
04-08-2004, 12:36 PM
I feel like if the Mavs will eat the last two years of Antonio Davis' contract, they can get Tyson Chandler from the Bulls.

Chandler's ability to rebound, block shots, run the floor, and provide bonus scoring seems like it would fit perfectly in Dallas. I'll admit that his health is a concern, but health is a concern with a lot of big guys, and I view him as potentially a younger, better Marcus Camby.

You roll the dice on that, I think, especially with his age.

OutletPass
04-08-2004, 12:56 PM
in your opinion, what would be the most realistic person/people we can get for Walker, that will work for the Mavs, and the other team ?

I'm of the opinion that we may get far less for Walker than we think. That's just my hunch. Nothing more.

I tend to agree with KG's post about Chandler...though Chi may want to keep AD and dump JYD instead. AD has been more valuable and they both have bad contracts.

After listening to the "Mav summit" with Stein on ESPN radio...I'd also look for Adonal Foyle and NVE from GS.

And the Charlotte thing for Jamison looks to have some foundation.

dalmations202
04-08-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I feel like if the Mavs will eat the last two years of Antonio Davis' contract, they can get Tyson Chandler from the Bulls.

Chandler's ability to rebound, block shots, run the floor, and provide bonus scoring seems like it would fit perfectly in Dallas. I'll admit that his health is a concern, but health is a concern with a lot of big guys, and I view him as potentially a younger, better Marcus Camby.

You roll the dice on that, I think, especially with his age.

FYI: I tend to agree. I will admit that my first choice of trying is Rasheed Wallace, but after that, I think this is the best "trade value".

So, if Chicago wants to do this instead:

Dallas trades: PF Antoine Walker (14.1 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 4.6 apg in 34.9 minutes)
PG Tony Delk (6.0 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.8 apg in 15.3 minutes)
Dallas receives: SF Eddie Robinson (6.7 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 1.1 apg in 20.1 minutes)
PF Jerome Williams (6.3 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 1.1 apg in 24.3 minutes)
PF Tyson Chandler (6.1 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 0.7 apg in 22.4 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -1.0 ppg, +6.5 rpg, and -2.5 apg.

Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (6.7 ppg, 2.0 rpg, 1.1 apg in 20.1 minutes)
PF Jerome Williams (6.3 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 1.1 apg in 24.3 minutes)
PF Tyson Chandler (6.1 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 0.7 apg in 22.4 minutes)
Chicago receives: PF Antoine Walker (14.1 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 4.6 apg in 77 games)
PG Tony Delk (6.0 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.8 apg in 32 games)
Change in team outlook: +1.0 ppg, -6.5 rpg, and +2.5 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Do you take the contracts of Robinson and Williams, just to get Chandler?

dalmations202
04-08-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by: OutletPass

in your opinion, what would be the most realistic person/people we can get for Walker, that will work for the Mavs, and the other team ?
<clip for space>

After listening to the "Mav summit" with Stein on ESPN radio...I'd also look for Adonal Foyle and NVE from GS.

And the Charlotte thing for Jamison looks to have some foundation.

Are you talking about a sign and trade with Foyle, and something like this?

Dallas trades: PF Antoine Walker (14.1 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 4.6 apg in 34.9 minutes)
PG Tony Delk (6.0 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.8 apg in 15.3 minutes)
Dallas receives: PG Nick Van Exel (12.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 5.3 apg in 32.2 minutes)
C Adonal Foyle (2.4 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 0.4 apg in 11.2 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -5.1 ppg, -4.5 rpg, and +0.3 apg.

Golden State trades: PG Nick Van Exel (12.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 5.3 apg in 32.2 minutes)
C Adonal Foyle (2.4 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 0.4 apg in 11.2 minutes)
Golden State receives: PF Antoine Walker (14.1 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 4.6 apg in 77 games)
PG Tony Delk (6.0 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.8 apg in 32 games)
Change in team outlook: +5.1 ppg, +4.5 rpg, and -0.3 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

It works, if Foyle would agree to accept about the same amount.

MikeB
04-08-2004, 02:27 PM
I'd rather it be AD, Chandler, and JYD for Walker, Delk and Fortson.

Would Chicago do this?
Fortson's contract is less and shorter term than JYD plus Fortson is a RB machine and the one really glaring weakness in Eddy Curry's game is his rebounding. Delk's deal isn't that bad and is only for 2 years. Walker's deal is over after next season and if they like him he might give them a little hometown discount to stay.

grndmstr_c
04-08-2004, 02:32 PM
The last year of JYD's contract is a team option, so he and Fortson are effectively under contract for the same duration. But if Chicago would do that trade, I would.

Edit: And excluding that team option on JYD's final year, Fortson's contract is actually worth 1 million more, so Chicago really wouldn't stand to save any money trading JYD for Fortson.

kg_veteran
04-08-2004, 03:03 PM
On the Walker/Delk for Chandler/Robinson/JYD scenario:

Here's the roster after that trade and before any other moves are made:

Chandler - Bradley - Fortson
Nowitzki - Williams - Najera
Howard - Jamison - Robinson
Finley - Daniels
Nash

Yeah, I guess I'd do it, but not as enthusiastically as the other deal. Once upon a time, Robinson was a tough perimeter defender. Then again, we've already got a tough perimeter defender sitting on our permanent IR. Do we need another? Also, JYD is Najera with better rebounding and less fan appeal. Don't know that he's really of much use.

On the Foyle/NVE for Walker/Delk scenario:

Let's just talk about the roster and what it would look like first:

Bradley - Foyle - Fortson
Nowitzki - Najera
Howard - Jamison
Finley - Daniels
Nash - NVE

I guess you could divide up minutes something like this:

Bradley/Foyle 40 - Nowitzki 8
Nowitzki 30 - Jamison 18
Howard 30 - Jamison 10 - Finley 8
Finley 28 - Daniels 20
Nash 30 - Van Exel 18

But you know Nellie would never give Bradley and Foyle that many minutes, and we'd end up seeing a Nash/NVE/Finley/Jamison/Dirk lineup down the stretch of most games.

No thanks.

I like Foyle, but he's not appreciably better than Bradley, and I don't think Nellie would use him.

dalmations202
04-08-2004, 03:10 PM
I like Foyle, but he's not appreciably better than Bradley, and I don't think Nellie would use him.
agreed. I don't think Nellie plays him much either, except when we are playing a Big 5 like Shaq. He isn't better than TAG, so I think you have to find out if you can sign TAG for the MLE before you think about this deal.

If you do this deal, though you have your banging 5, and your backup PG (I think NVE would be surprisingly more healthy back in Dallas). You have your MLE, and Fortson (no longer needed because you have your banging 5).

What could you get with the MLE, and Fortson - that could run the floor, and block shots, provide "garbage" type buckets?