PDA

View Full Version : Current Roster


doggnutz
08-11-2004, 08:41 AM
How much more does the roster need to change. I kind of like it right now. I agree with D Lord from the Fish show yesterday, bring in somebody who would actually be an upgrade over Bradley and Booth if not let's see what we have in D.J. and and the rest of the center rotation. At least this year we have real centers that will play the position. We got younger, better defensively. I'm happy with the offseason so far and then the possibility of what the 24th can bring is awesome.
STARTERS KEY BENCH MORE BENCH
PG Jason Terry Devin Harris Marquis Daniels
SG Mike Finley Marquis Daniels Josh Howard
SF Jerry Stackhouse Josh Howard Ed Najera
PF Dirk Nowitzki Alan Henderson Ed Najera
C Calvin Booth Shawn Bradley D.J. Benga\P. Podkolzin

Chiwas
08-11-2004, 09:10 PM
An 8th seed team. 7th at best.

u2sarajevo
08-11-2004, 09:42 PM
Trying to proclaim us as a seed now is like counting the chickens before they are hatched.

Be patient, or accept it when your prediction is thrown in your face at the end of the year.

EricaLubarsky
08-11-2004, 10:36 PM
*Cheers U2*

Chiwas
08-12-2004, 12:02 AM
It is not a prediction.

It is a measure of the level I think the team has for now. It is not hard to understand it, being the trade and sign period still active.

If you hate our level nowadays and don't want to accept it, better be patient yourselves to see what happens but be prepared to accept the inevitable if the team cannot improve more. In the other hand, if the problem is that you think that the team is in better position compared to what I think, I don't have any problem about it at all, but just say it, what level do you think we have for now?

Furthermore, in order to not waste my saliva, with great pleasure I would like to compete with both of you when the team is done and the season is about to start, with our predictions for the next season. I like bets with real money involved.

Captain Disaster
08-12-2004, 12:07 AM
We have no good ball handlers. Without Nash, we're screwed. Cuban should've maxed Nash, & traded him a couple of years down the road. We would've at least gotten what we got for Walker. Nash always gave 110%. It's in the past now, but the immediate future really sucks. Just because I believe this does not make me any less of a Mavs fan. As fans, we don't have to just accept whatever crap they throw at us without being disappointed. Hopefully Dirk will be on a Finals team in Dallas BEFORE he retires, gets seriosly injured, or is traded away.

bgantz
08-12-2004, 12:11 AM
i would prefer stackhouse and laettner be moved. but just for minor bit players to help out to give depth. the mavs found out the hard way that too many stars and not enough role players hurts....we already have dirk, terry, finley, daniels.....we don't need stackhouse taking shots away from those guys. stackhouse just seems like another walker situation to me. a guy with some talent, but doesn't really fit here and can't get the right minutes and ends up sulking about it.

bgantz
08-12-2004, 12:14 AM
i wouldn't mind kurt thomas being here personally. he's not a center but he can play defense and he's a role player. he's the type of guy teams leave open when you have to pick and choose the players to closely guard during a game. and he can knock down midrange shots.

Chef Ed
08-12-2004, 01:05 AM
Not that this is earthshattering news, but keep in mind the roster needs to be trimmed, especially if we intend on signing Johnson before training camp starts.

That means we have to dump 3 spots. We sit right now at 17 and that doesn't include Avery.
So there has to be more moves to be made and dumping Laettner and Stack for nothing isn't the answer.

That is what is concerning me about Howard. He is a player on this team that has some real value and can be used in a multi player deal not only to improve the Center position but also to downsize the roster. I doubt that happens, but again it should be a concern.

This team is far from done. Cuban isn't going to eat 3 salaries just to sign Avery. So somewhere we need to get 1 player for 2 or 3. And the only way to do that is by taking on a large salary from either a second tier player or a starting center. Roster concerns are a real problem right now, but again, the 24th will tell more. I just think Dampier is coming here. It seems to be one of the things that make sense as far as the roster is concerned.

EricaLubarsky
08-12-2004, 01:13 AM
We have no good ball handlers

Terry, Stackhouse, Daniels (kinda), Johnson, Nowitzki.....


It's in the past now, but the immediate future really sucks

I thought you were drooling longingly after NVE. Now it's Nash? Do you always fall in love with players we lose after they are gone. Last offseason you were bagging on Nash, and now that he is gone, he is a saint. You need to at least stick with your man love of one player.


Hopefully Dirk will be on a Finals team in Dallas BEFORE he retires, gets seriosly injured, or is traded away.

And Disaster wonders why people hate him....try to add something to the board. P.S. your pessimism doesnt count.

Max Power
08-12-2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
We have no good ball handlers. Without Nash, we're screwed. Cuban should've maxed Nash, & traded him a couple of years down the road. We would've at least gotten what we got for Walker. Nash always gave 110%. It's in the past now, but the immediate future really sucks. Just because I believe this does not make me any less of a Mavs fan. As fans, we don't have to just accept whatever crap they throw at us without being disappointed. Hopefully Dirk will be on a Finals team in Dallas BEFORE he retires, gets seriosly injured, or is traded away.

I'm still willing to bet you that the Mavs have a better record than last year.

Put your money where your mouth is - loser donates $100 to d-m.com

EricaLubarsky
08-12-2004, 01:21 AM
I'll take that bet, Max but I only have 25.

Now that I think about it, I owe D-M.com more than that no matter what.

If the Mavs win more than 55 games, I donate 50bucks, if they win fewer, its 25$

mary
08-12-2004, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
We have no good ball handlers. Without Nash, we're screwed. Cuban should've maxed Nash, & traded him a couple of years down the road. We would've at least gotten what we got for Walker. Nash always gave 110%. It's in the past now, but the immediate future really sucks. Just because I believe this does not make me any less of a Mavs fan. As fans, we don't have to just accept whatever crap they throw at us without being disappointed. Hopefully Dirk will be on a Finals team in Dallas BEFORE he retires, gets seriosly injured, or is traded away.


I think it WILL be rough in the beginning without Nash, but I'm happy as heck that Cubes didn't max him out. What makes you think Nash with a max contract would be tradeable in a couple of years? We were able to get something for Walker because he has an expiring contract and he probably has more starting years left in him than Nash will 2/3 years from now.

A "couple of years down the road", Nash would've been pushing 33 and still have 4-5 years left on this MAX contract you purported. Let Phoenix deal with that.....I'm glad we passed.

doggnutz
08-12-2004, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
[quote]
We have no good ball handlers

Terry, Stackhouse, Daniels (kinda), Johnson, Nowitzki.....

You left out Devin Harris and Steffason.

Chef Ed
08-12-2004, 08:11 AM
The effect of Nash leaving won't be dertmined for sometime. It all depends on how fast Devin adjust to the NBA level of pointguard, and how long it will take Terry to adjust to Nellie's system.
I'm sure that Nash will be missed. Not sure for how long, but we do have some reliable ball handlers on the team that can deal with what has happened.

And again, until the roster is set all of this is just speculation. It will be very interesting to see what this administration does after the 24th to cut the roster before training camp starts.

Quetzalcoatl
08-12-2004, 05:06 PM
Those comments are in the NBA.com Hawks page:

Why the Mavericks did it: In addition to being an excellent scorer, Jason Terry is an adequate defender, which is something the Mavericks have been lacking at key positions in the last few years. Terry will probably play some point in Dallas along with rookie Devin Harris, after the team lost Steve Nash to the Suns in the offseason,. Terry's quickness and athleticism will allow the Mavs to continue their high-flying ways. His stay might not be long in Dallas because his name has already come in trade rumors for New Jersey's Jason Kidd. Henderson will provide some frontcourt depth for Dallas if he can stay healthy. The Mavericks also received a future 1st round draft pick from the Hawks. The pick was originally the 76ers, and came to the Hawks in the trade for Glenn Robinson. It is also lottery protected, and could be unavailable until 2007.

Micah Hart is the Asst. Web Editor for the Atlanta Hawks


http://www.nba.com/hawks/news/Trade_Analysis.html


What do you think about it?

fin4life
08-12-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl
Those comments are in the NBA.com Hawks page:

Why the Mavericks did it: In addition to being an excellent scorer, Jason Terry is an adequate defender, which is something the Mavericks have been lacking at key positions in the last few years. Terry will probably play some point in Dallas along with rookie Devin Harris, after the team lost Steve Nash to the Suns in the offseason,. Terry's quickness and athleticism will allow the Mavs to continue their high-flying ways. His stay might not be long in Dallas because his name has already come in trade rumors for New Jersey's Jason Kidd. Henderson will provide some frontcourt depth for Dallas if he can stay healthy. The Mavericks also received a future 1st round draft pick from the Hawks. The pick was originally the 76ers, and came to the Hawks in the trade for Glenn Robinson. It is also lottery protected, and could be unavailable until 2007.

Micah Hart is the Asst. Web Editor for the Atlanta Hawks


http://www.nba.com/hawks/news/Trade_Analysis.html


What do you think about it?

You posted the exact same thing in the "Press conference" thread. Dont ake the same post in 2 different threads.

Captain Disaster
08-12-2004, 10:53 PM
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.

u2sarajevo
08-12-2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.I think no one has lived up to their username as well as you have. And for that I applaud you. i/expressions/moon.gif

edit: I just noticed I forgot the sarcsasm icon... and to say that I agree with EL (meaning I am optimistic with this squad)

EricaLubarsky
08-12-2004, 11:03 PM
Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons?

I do.

fin4life
08-12-2004, 11:06 PM
"Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons?"

I do. The mavs will enter the season with a yound and exciting team. The western conference has balanced out a little, and the mavs' lack of dominant center may not hold them back as much. The Lakers and Kings have fallen, and now a bunch of unproven teams (denver, utah, houston...ect.) + the spurs and wolves are the only teams that can compete in the west. We have plenty of scorers, improved Defense, and slightly better center rotation. I support every move that the mavs have made this summer and I am confident that they will make another good trade (if not 2). We are very deep right now...and the development of howard, harris, daniels, Benga, and PPod really excite me. The mavs have nowhere to go but up from here, i believe that we have a chance to advance deep into the playoffs. Before you give up on this year, you should at least let them play a freakin game!!!!!! You arent even letting them finish the offseason before giving up hope.... I am not a fan of you negative attitude.

sike
08-12-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons?
I do.
uhhh, ditto.

this team has a bright future ahead of it...only optimism from your favorite alien...are there real questions? sure....will they be answerd...I believe so.

ddh33
08-12-2004, 11:13 PM
I like this team. I think they'll surprise. Last year's team never fit to me, and I said that many times. I understood the thinking, I just knew the end in advance. Actually, the team I was most excited and hopeful about was the team that won 60. I really liked the makeup of that team...

V2M
08-12-2004, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.


I feel more optimistic of this team as compared to the last few seasons. We have younger, more athletic players who can play on both ends of the floor. There may be a move or two left this off-season but that doesn't mean we aren't good now.

Male30Dan
08-12-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.

I have a feeling that if God himself came down from heaven, granted you three wishes and gave you a lollipop to boot you would bitch about the flavor of the lollipop!!!

Captain Disaster
08-12-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.I think no one has lived up to their username as well as you have. And for that I applaud you. i/expressions/moon.gif

edit: I just noticed I forgot the sarcsasm icon... and to say that I agree with EL (meaning I am optimistic with this squad)



Thanks for the positive strokes. Despite my "pessimism" which (at least those who are on right now) everyone posting seems to disagree with, I truly hope that everyone (not me) is correct in their assessment of this years team. Yes, it IS too early to truly tell, and we do have quality players, but I would think that after last year's problems with the team "gelling", people wouldn't be blindly optimistic (no more than my blind pessimism!). I realize that Walker & Jamison were not good fits, & we had too many superstars, but this year our problem will be more related to who will captain the ship. If Terry or Harris become that person, fine. At this point, it's optimistic at best to believe that the Mavs will just move on without missing a beat. Maybe they will be better, & maybe many people like the newer players who will allegedly improve our defense: we'll see.

As far as my nickname, it's an old bowling moniker not some kind of "trouble maker" icon, but, hey, if we can generate some new discussion on this board from time to time at my expense, go with it.

Captain Disaster
08-12-2004, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by: Male23Dan

Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.

I have a feeling that if God himself came down from heaven, granted you three wishes and gave you a lollipop to boot you would bitch about the flavor of the lollipop!!!


Engaging in a little hyperbole MD?

fin4life
08-12-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by: Male23Dan

Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.

I have a feeling that if God himself came down from heaven, granted you three wishes and gave you a lollipop to boot you would bitch about the flavor of the lollipop!!!

NICE!

u2sarajevo
08-12-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for the positive strokes. Despite my "pessimism" which (at least those who are on right now) everyone posting seems to disagree with, I truly hope that everyone (not me) is correct in their assessment of this years team. Yes, it IS too early to truly tell, and we do have quality players, but I would think that after last year's problems with the team "gelling", people wouldn't be blindly optimistic (no more than my blind pessimism!). I realize that Walker & Jamison were not good fits, & we had too many superstars, but this year our problem will be more related to who will captain the ship. If Terry or Harris become that person, fine. At this point, it's optimistic at best to believe that the Mavs will just move on without missing a beat. Maybe they will be better, & maybe many people like the newer players who will allegedly improve our defense: we'll see.

As far as my nickname, it's an old bowling moniker not some kind of "trouble maker" icon, but, hey, if we can generate some new discussion on this board from time to time at my expense, go with it.Man I wish you had your PM's turned on.. because if you did I would have sent you one that said something like I was just playing with you and to not take me seriously all the time. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

Male30Dan
08-12-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster

Originally posted by: Male23Dan

Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.

I have a feeling that if God himself came down from heaven, granted you three wishes and gave you a lollipop to boot you would bitch about the flavor of the lollipop!!!


Engaging in a little hyperbole MD?

Actually, I dont know that it is much of a stretch for you... Your avatar should be that picture of the chicken and the chart pointing out the probability of the sky falling!!!

u2sarajevo
08-12-2004, 11:42 PM
Well, that picture is actually the reverse of what he does... notice how the chicken is pointing to a low-risk....
http://mysite.verizon.net/res72si9/DallasMavsImages/chicken_little.jpg

Male30Dan
08-12-2004, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
Well, that picture is actually the reverse of what he does... notice how the chicken is pointing to a low-risk....
http://mysite.verizon.net/res72si9/DallasMavsImages/chicken_little.jpg

My point exactly though... He needs to keep it as an avatar to remind him how to properly post!

EricaLubarsky
08-12-2004, 11:48 PM
It's not risk-scenarios for CD, the sky actually always is falling.

zanahale
08-12-2004, 11:58 PM
I do.

Nash/Best or Terry/Harris - Advantage Terry/Harris (minor setback in offense (nash wise) but younger, better defenders, both like to play up tempo, both can hit the 3, both like to attack the basket, and both are adequate at assisting the ball which I think will go up considering all the scoreres we have...On average they are a better 1/2 punch.

Daniels/Delk or Daniels/Stackhouse - Advantage Daniels/Stackhouse

Finley/Howard or Finley/Howard - Even

Dirk/Jamison or Dirk/Najera - Advantage Dirk/Najera (better defense (without AJ) and chemistry)

Walker/Dirk/Fortson/Bradley or Booth/Bradley/DJ (more height, better shotblocking, better defense)

Male30Dan
08-13-2004, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by: zanahale
I do.

Dirk/Jamison or Dirk/Najera - Advantage Dirk/Najera (better defense (without AJ) and chemistry)

I was right there with you until this...

Jamison, while a TERRIBLE defender, did everything he was asked and is obviously a better scorer and rebounder than Najera... Seeing as how Najera was already here last year, the chemistry card cant really be played, (especially with Jamison being such a nice overall guy that caused ZERO friction in the locker room). Also, Najera is certainly no all-world defender, so if he is an upgrade on defense, it is due to his hustle and heart more so than actual ability and talent.

I think the trade that brought Devin, Stack and L8 here was a good move, but you cant compare Najera to Jamison and give the edge to Najera with a straight face!

ChickenLittle
08-13-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by: Male23Dan

Originally posted by: Captain Disaster

Originally posted by: Male23Dan

Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.

I have a feeling that if God himself came down from heaven, granted you three wishes and gave you a lollipop to boot you would bitch about the flavor of the lollipop!!!


Engaging in a little hyperbole MD?

Actually, I dont know that it is much of a stretch for you... Your avatar should be that picture of the chicken and the chart pointing out the probability of the sky falling!!!

That's insulting to me

Captain Disaster
08-13-2004, 12:08 AM
Hilarious! Ok, I've been chastised. I now officially cowtow to the superior wisdom of MD & others who seem to revel in these humorous attacks.

ChickenLittle
08-13-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Hilarious! Ok, I've been chastised. I now officially cowtow to the superior wisdom of MD & others who seem to revel in these humorous attacks.

about time

EricaLubarsky
08-13-2004, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by: ChickenLittle

Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Hilarious! Ok, I've been chastised. I now officially cowtow to the superior wisdom of MD & others who seem to revel in these humorous attacks.

about time

hilarious coming from a guy with three posts

zanahale
08-13-2004, 12:13 AM
You are right, Jamison is a great scorer. I'm not saying Najera is better then AJ by no means. I'm just saying the problem last year was with the chemistry on having two power forwards like Walker and Jamison trying to get minutes when playing with Dirk. I feel the chemistry really got screwed and the defense lacked as a result. I think with Jamison gone, some of the others will get the shots Jamison got and we should still see some comparable offensive production...I think the defense should improve as a result as well since we will have more role players playing behind our starters.

Male30Dan
08-13-2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by: ChickenLittle

Originally posted by: Male23Dan

Originally posted by: Captain Disaster

Originally posted by: Male23Dan

Originally posted by: Captain Disaster
Thanks for your optimism and good will, Erica. Just wait till we are pressed by other teams. Sure, a couple of our guards can dribble adequately (not Fin), but who can dribble like Nash? As far as the Hawks article goes, who cares what their web editor thinks? None of our current guards are as good as Van Exel. Contribute something to the board? I am; just because some people have different opinions, so what? Many people agree with what I'm saying. Since when does Erica have some sort of moral authority to speak for all the members here? Am I frustrated? You bet. I'm frustrated because the Mavs have made several boneheaded moves since their albeit lucky trip to the WCFs. Will they be better? Time will tell, but ticket costs haven't been reduced, & we're unlikely to go anywhere this year in the playoffs pending some last minute super deals before the season starts & some magical "gelling" thereafter. So, essentially, until we again have a quality product on the court that has a realistic chance of competing for a title, why shouldn't I feel pessimistic? Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons? I think that more people are pissed about the last two summers moves than who are pleased. I will concede that I've been spoiled and teased by the possibility of winning a championship the past few years; maybe it's just a pipedream, & we should just accept that we'll just be competitive instead.

I have a feeling that if God himself came down from heaven, granted you three wishes and gave you a lollipop to boot you would bitch about the flavor of the lollipop!!!


Engaging in a little hyperbole MD?

Actually, I dont know that it is much of a stretch for you... Your avatar should be that picture of the chicken and the chart pointing out the probability of the sky falling!!!

That's insulting to me

I apologize if I insulted you; however, I still believe what I said to be correct. Stating that I am engaging in hyperbole is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black!

EricaLubarsky
08-13-2004, 12:16 AM
All I'm saying is that you can't count your eggs in a day. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

Psychedelic Fuzz
08-13-2004, 12:16 AM
We have no good ball handlers?
We have plenty of adequate ball handlers. Do we have one as good as Steve? Nope, but how many teams do? Replacing Nash in an offense is like replacing Shaq in the paint. Now that he's gone the point is not to replace him with a ball-handler of similar skill because there just aren't that many. If Nelson tries to play the exact same way he did with Nash, just like removing shaq and plugging in Vlade, it won't work. Quit whining about "replacing" Nash, because you don't. You build a new team and play to the new team's new set of strengths

Having said that, we now have two good young point guards...DIFFERENT PLAYERS THAN NASH, but perfectly capable of handling a ball and running an offense, and being mentored by the likely next head coach of the team.

Honestly, sit back and look at this roster. We were spoiled by the amount of talent here last year. This is a roster many gm's would kill for.

Male30Dan
08-13-2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
All I'm saying is that you can't count your eggs in a day. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

Um, what if you only have 3... Wouldnt three be fairly easy to count in one day??? i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

EricaLubarsky
08-13-2004, 12:30 AM
Ah. What P-fuzz lacks in quantity, he more than makes up for in quality. Almost a perfect comment.

We will never have the 2002-2003 team again, but even if we had kept all the players we had then, there is no guarantee that we would ever replicate that success. Players get older, players get injured, other teams change, relationships between players and between players and coaches change, chemistry changes, personalities change. It is living in the past to bankrupt the team and to endanger the future of the team to preserve past success and it is foolish to think that the next great Mavs team will look like the 2002-2003 one.

The only option we have is to keep recreating ourselves and continuing to mix players up until we have success. Terry, Harris, P-Pod, M'Benga, Stackhouse and Howard all have the opportunity to become what players like NVE, Bell and Nash were in seasons past. You can't step into the same river twice and I am very happy with the moves we have made recognizing that fact.

Psychedelic Fuzz
08-13-2004, 12:38 AM
what do you mean almost?i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

poohrichardson
08-13-2004, 04:38 AM
All of this pessimism will immediately disappear if we make the trade for Kidd.. if we can find a way to keep Stackhouse (as a legit scoring option), there's no reason we won't be better this year than we were last year. Only bad break is that we lost Jamison. Otherwise, we shed Antoine Walker and Nash->Kidd is an upgrade if you ask me.

vashjan
08-13-2004, 08:38 AM
Several points need to be made..

1) I like Jason Terry because he is
a) He is more durable than Nash
b) Cheaper than nash
c) More moxy than Nash (somewhat like a younger Van Exel)
d) plays better defense than Nash
e) as fast or faster than Nash
Cons
a) a little more careless than Nash (look for our TO to increase)
b) Not as good as a sharpshooter as Nash (but close)

2) Dirk will be the 1st option on this team (No question here) No more confusion w/ Walker ballhogging crap
3) Finley will be the 2nd option (which is good) - he always plays better if asked to carry a heavier load
4) Stackhouse/Daniels, if healthy a very similar Jamison kind of player with a little more selfishness (which we need)
5) Booth , well we will have to wait and see.

Now on the backups

Lattner, Daniels/Stackhouse,Howard, Harris,(Avery), Najera, Bradley (pretty darn good actually --> more defensive minded)

Reserve list
Stefenson
P-Pod
Mbenga

Now on the rest
Henderson --> Will never play a game
TAW --> Will never play a game
(Hopefully these 2 will have their contracts bought out or traded)

i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
Ah. What P-fuzz lacks in quantity, he more than makes up for in quality. Almost a perfect comment.

We will never have the 2002-2003 team again, but even if we had kept all the players we had then, there is no guarantee that we would ever replicate that success. Players get older, players get injured, other teams change, relationships between players and between players and coaches change, chemistry changes, personalities change. It is living in the past to bankrupt the team and to endanger the future of the team to preserve past success and it is foolish to think that the next great Mavs team will look like the 2002-2003 one.

The only option we have is to keep recreating ourselves and continuing to mix players up until we have success. Terry, Harris, P-Pod, M'Benga, Stackhouse and Howard all have the opportunity to become what players like NVE, Bell and Nash were in seasons past. You can't step into the same river twice and I am very happy with the moves we have made recognizing that fact.

Actually, another option would have been to give last year's team a chance to develop some chemistry. The 2002-2003 team was not different (in players) than the one that finished 2001-2002, but they didn't play well in 01-02. After going through training camp together they played much better. The main problem defensively last year was that they didn't know how to play together. They didn't know where everyone else was going to be, so guys would be left open while 2 Mavs covered the same man. I would have liked to see the team stick together for one more year.

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by: fin4life
"Who feels optimistic with this squad compared to the last few seasons?"

I do. The mavs will enter the season with a yound and exciting team. The western conference has balanced out a little, and the mavs' lack of dominant center may not hold them back as much. The Lakers and Kings have fallen, and now a bunch of unproven teams (denver, utah, houston...ect.) + the spurs and wolves are the only teams that can compete in the west. We have plenty of scorers, improved Defense, and slightly better center rotation. I support every move that the mavs have made this summer and I am confident that they will make another good trade (if not 2). We are very deep right now...and the development of howard, harris, daniels, Benga, and PPod really excite me. The mavs have nowhere to go but up from here, i believe that we have a chance to advance deep into the playoffs. Before you give up on this year, you should at least let them play a freakin game!!!!!! You arent even letting them finish the offseason before giving up hope.... I am not a fan of you negative attitude.
Isn't that a little hypocritical? If he shouldn't be pessimistic yet, should you be so optimistic?

Murphy3
08-13-2004, 09:00 AM
No.
Last years team did not deserve more time to develop chemistry. It was a collection of ill fitting parts. The main problem with the team defensively last season had much more to do with poor defenders as opposed to lack of chemistry. Plus, it didn't help that the player that has the ability to make the biggest positive impact on the team defensively was sitting in Nellie's doghouse for some unknown reason for most of the year.

sike
08-13-2004, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
No.
Last years team did not deserve more time to develop chemistry. It was a collection of ill fitting parts. The main problem with the team defensively last season had much more to do with poor defenders as opposed to lack of chemistry. Plus, it didn't help that the player that has the ability to make the biggest positive impact on the team defensively was sitting in Nellie's doghouse for some unknown reason for most of the year.
plus, possibly the two most important defensive positions were occupied by poor defenders....Nash(considered by some the worst defensive starting point in the league) at the one and Dirk(yeah, yeah we know the tired "no D" joke) playing for the first time at the 5. not a winning combo.

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 09:33 AM
Missed assignments don't happen because of poor defenders. They happen because people don't know where the other team members are going to be. Poor defenders get beat (which did happen), but they don't cover the wrong man (which happened a lot). That happens because they didn't play together long enough. They looked lost defensively, which happens when you don't have enough experience playing together.

In the summer of 2002 people were saying the same thing about how they needed to make a change because Van Exel and Raef didn't fit in well and the team didn't have any chemistry. The difference then was we didn't have the excuse that too many guys played the same position. That team just had 2 great PGs instead of 3 great PFs.

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by: sike
plus, possibly the two most important defensive positions were occupied by poor defenders....Nash(considered by some the worst defensive starting point in the league) at the one and Dirk(yeah, yeah we know the tired "no D" joke) playing for the first time at the 5. not a winning combo.

Those same 2 poor defenders were on the team in 2002-2003.

And this year wasn't the first time Dirk played the 5. He has played it off and on for 3 years. Maybe he played it more this year, but it isn't like it was a new position for him.

sike
08-13-2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by: Some Guy
[quote]
Originally posted by: sike
plus, possibly the two most important defensive positions were occupied by poor defenders....Nash(considered by some the worst defensive starting point in the league) at the one and Dirk(yeah, yeah we know the tired "no D" joke) playing for the first time at the 5. not a winning combo.


Those same 2 poor defenders were on the team in 2002-2003.
if I shoot you in the hand...its really going to hurt....but at least you have the other hand....if I shoot you in both hands its really gonna hurt and you can't use either hand. The point is the first line of Defense and the Center is the last line of defense when both are letting you down defensivly you really don't have a chance..a team can surrive one or the other...but both, as the Mavs proved last season, was too much. You are right SG, both Steve and Dirk were on the team (very astute) but what was the difference....was Nash a better defender.....nope....the difference is large part was Shawn Bradley or Raef....someone who would challenge/alter shots in ways that Dirk does not. I know the comparison may be vague, but this past season....the Mavs were shot in both hands.

And this year wasn't the first time Dirk played the 5. He has played it off and on for 3 years. Maybe he played it more this year, but it isn't like it was a new position for him.
this is just so very wrong I dont know what to say.....1. Upon occasion(in spots only) Dirk had played the 5, but never to any real extent it was usually for matchups. 2. He was asked to play center in situations where the team needed stops this past season...not to my recollection had the team ever expected him to play a defensive minded 5 before. 3. yes it was and still is a very new position for him, before 03/04 he had played very little center in his entire career. He is not used to or built for banging with the big boys....and we all re-learned that lesson the hard way.

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
No.
Last years team did not deserve more time to develop chemistry. It was a collection of ill fitting parts. The main problem with the team defensively last season had much more to do with poor defenders as opposed to lack of chemistry. Plus, it didn't help that the player that has the ability to make the biggest positive impact on the team defensively was sitting in Nellie's doghouse for some unknown reason for most of the year.You know what is funny? I just looked back at some old threads from the summer of 2002, and you posted something very similar to this.

Here is the url of the thread: http://dallas-mavs.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=2&threadid=3834

Here is your quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3
i don't think the mavs have the talent.
that's where we disagree..the mavs have the offensive talent but i don't think they have the defensive talent.. that has little to do with chemistry .. i simply don't think the combo of players that they have is conducive to winning a championship..
whether it's griffin moving into the starting lineup and adding a guy that can bang on the inside or something else..

i simply do not, have not, and never will like the nve and nash combo

Giving that team a chance to go through a full training camp seemed to work. I would have liked to see the 2003-2004 roster have another chance.

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by: sike

Originally posted by: Some Guy


And this year wasn't the first time Dirk played the 5. He has played it off and on for 3 years. Maybe he played it more this year, but it isn't like it was a new position for him.
this is just so very wrong I dont know what to say.....1. Upon occasion(in spots only) Dirk had played the 5, but never to any real extent it was usually for matchups. 2. He was asked to play center in situations where the team needed stops this past season...not to my recollection had the team ever expected him to play a defensive minded 5 before. 3. yes it was and still is a very new position for him, before 03/04 he had played very little center in his entire career. He is not used to or built for banging with the big boys....and we all re-learned that lesson the hard way.

Maybe I'm wrong. But, who played the 5 when they played small ball?

grndmstr_c
08-13-2004, 11:57 AM
Here we go again. Some Guy, I would have hoped that we'd succeeded in disabusing you of the urge to go looking back through old threads and bringing out of context comments from threads you weren't involved in into new discussions.

I personally think the problem last season was a combination of having an imbalanced roster, not giving minutes to the right guys in the right positions, and guys not having learned where they were supposed to be and what they were supposed to be doing in the defensive schemes, which is to say I'm pretty sure I disagree with Murphy on the main discussion point, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't hoping he and/or somebody else came along and slammed you for digging up some old comment he made about a markedly different roster. It's freaking annoying.

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 12:05 PM
Do you not know the context of the summer of 2002? Can you not read the thread to get any more context that might be needed? Did I in any way change the meaning of what he originally said?

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 12:11 PM
Are you really suggesting that I should never quote anyone? Or do I need to quote the whole thread to keep it in context? Or can I only quote posts from today?

grndmstr_c
08-13-2004, 12:52 PM
Do you not know the context of the summer of 2002? Can you not read the thread to get any more context that might be needed? Did I in any way change the meaning of what he originally said?You seem to have a very narrow understanding of what it means to take something out of context. The fact that you're trying to apply a quote about a team that shared only 4 players with the current squad to the current squad is enough.

Are you really suggesting that I should never quote anyone? Or do I need to quote the whole thread to keep it in context? Or can I only quote posts from today?Being ridiculous doesn't do anything for your cause. There's nothing wrong with quoting people. I dare say in many cases it's quite appropriate. It's your propensity to revisit old statements as if they were made today that's annoying. If you think there's a parallel in defensive ability between the 02/03 team and last year's team then just freaking say so and let the merits of your opinion be debated. Don't run around grabbing old statements from people who quite obviously patently disagree with you, and then try to use those statements to imply that the quoted individual thinks something that they almost certainly don't think (in this case that there's a solid basis for comparing the 02/03 squad to last year's team).

LRB
08-13-2004, 12:58 PM
Last years roster had to go. There was nothing that recommended keeping it for one more year. As for Some Guys ridiculous comments to think about keeping the roster intact because it seemed to work once in the past, I would ask him to review the NBA finals which featured 2 teams which made significant changes in the offseason and/or during the season. The winner actually made a major midseason trade. This in no way proves that you have to make a midseason trade to win a championship, but it does prove that with the right personnel moves a team can vastly improve their changes of winning a championship.

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by: grndmstr_c

Do you not know the context of the summer of 2002? Can you not read the thread to get any more context that might be needed? Did I in any way change the meaning of what he originally said?You seem to have a very narrow understanding of what it means to take something out of context. The fact that you're trying to apply a quote about a team that shared only 4 players with the current squad to the current squad is enough.
I was not trying to apply the old quote to the current team. I was trying to compare his opinion about that team with his opinion about this team, and since his opinion about that team was not correct, maybe his opinion about this team is also not correct.

And it isn't "out of context" if I include (via the url) and you understand the context. To say something is out of context is to imply that somehow the meaning was changed. I in no way changed the meaning of his quote. I in no way attempted to change the meaning of his quote. Not at all. If you think I did, please explain to me how I changed the meaning.


Originally posted by: grndmstr_c


Are you really suggesting that I should never quote anyone? Or do I need to quote the whole thread to keep it in context? Or can I only quote posts from today?Being ridiculous doesn't do anything for your cause. There's nothing wrong with quoting people. I dare say in many cases it's quite appropriate. It's your propensity to revisit old statements as if they were made today that's annoying.Man, I clearly said it was from 2 years ago. How is that "as if they were made today"?


Originally posted by: grndmstr_c

If you think there's a parallel in defensive ability between the 02/03 team and last year's team then just freaking say so and let the merits of your opinion be debated. Don't run around grabbing old statements from people who quite obviously patently disagree with you, and then try to use those statements to imply that the quoted individual thinks something that they almost certainly don't think (in this case that there's a solid basis for comparing the 02/03 squad to last year's team).
I did not imply that he meant anything different that what his quotes clearly state (that the 01/02 team and the 03/04 team both had defensive problems that were caused by "poor defenders" and not lack of chemistry). Am I misunderstanding what he said? Am I changing his meaning? Please tell me how.

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by: LRB
Last years roster had to go. There was nothing that recommended keeping it for one more year. As for Some Guys ridiculous comments to think about keeping the roster intact because it seemed to work once in the past, I would ask him to review the NBA finals which featured 2 teams which made significant changes in the offseason and/or during the season. The winner actually made a major midseason trade. This in no way proves that you have to make a midseason trade to win a championship, but it does prove that with the right personnel moves a team can vastly improve their changes of winning a championship.

I'm not saying to keep it intact just because it worked once in the past. I started by saying that the defensive problems last year were due to not knowing how to play together. If the problem is comfort/chemistry/experience and not player ability (which is what I think, and was the case with 01/02 team), then giving it another year is logical. Not the only option, and I never said it was, but it is still a viable option (would have been - obviously not now).

Yes, Detroit did prove that you can improve your chances with the right personnel moves. I'm just saying that the 01/02 to 02/03 Mavs teams showed that you can also improve by not making any more moves and giving your previous moves time to mesh.

mapape
08-13-2004, 01:57 PM
Our roster is good but we need to get rid of Stackhouse and Terry (maybe for Dampier?) and laettner and bradley wont get it done down low. I think we will be in good shape but more trades are definitley needed.

grndmstr_c
08-13-2004, 01:57 PM
I was not trying to apply the old quote to the current team. I was trying to compare his opinion about that team with his opinion about this team, and since his opinion about that team was not correct, maybe his opinion about this team is also not correct.Perhaps you could start by letting people compare and qualify and compare their own opinions, cause more often than not you miss the boat when you try to do it for them.

And it isn't "out of context" if I include (via the url) and you understand the context. To say something is out of context is to imply that somehow the meaning was changed. I in no way changed the meaning of his quote. I in no way attempted to change the meaning of his quote. Not at all. If you think I did, please explain to me how I changed the meaning.Rationalize the meaning of context all you want. The fact remains, you have a bad habit of looking up things other people have said in other discussions and trying to apply them to things they say in the current discussion. It serves no purpose unless you're trying to characterize someone else's meanings and intentions according to your own views, so either you are doing something that serves no purpose, or you're playing with the meaning of other people's posts. The first step in dealing with a problem is admitting you have a problem.

Man, I clearly said it was from 2 years ago. How is that "as if they were made today"?Fine, how about if I say, your propensity for applying 2 year old quotes to current discussions as if you are privy to the author's point of view and know that the author would regard the updating of his old comments to the current context as appropriate.

Some Guy
08-13-2004, 03:30 PM
Tell me what I updated about his old comment. Please.

Again, how did I change his meaning? You keep telling me that I'm changing the meanings, but you never tell me how I've changed it.

Captain Disaster
08-13-2004, 08:56 PM
The reason that ball handling is so important fro the Mavs is because we have to have a really low turnover rate to make up for our pathetic rebounding (and I'm not referring to rebounding statistics that are padded due to initial missed shots ala Walker). Without a ball handler who can beat the press, we will get BLOWN OUT of games if our rebounding is also suspect. It'll be: one shot, no rebound, other team scores, Mavs turn the ball over, other team scores, etc... From the reports that I've read, Terry is a LONG WAY from Nash in turning the ball over, thus my "pessimism" over losing Nash. Despite his defensive shortcomings, Nash's fantastic play covered up many other areas that the Mavs are weak in, and consequently, we were able to get a lot more shots. This is a major weakness this year with our current roster.

grndmstr_c
08-13-2004, 09:09 PM
We've got guys who can bring the ball up the court, craptain.

cheesestar
08-13-2004, 09:09 PM
i like what the mavs have done after steve's leaving this offseason which leaves me to remain optimistic to a point. i think the player in our current rosters are people who want to be here (maybe with the exception of stackhouse) and will ease our gelling time

Captain Disaster
08-13-2004, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by: grndmstr_c
We've got guys who can bring the ball up the court, craptain.

Who, Glandmaster?

grndmstr_c
08-13-2004, 09:22 PM
Who, Glandmaster?
Dude, that was lame.

By the way. Jason Terry averaged 3.7 TO's per 48 minutes as a point guard last year. Steve Nash averaged 3.8, so please chill with the clueless bellyaching.

Psychedelic Fuzz
08-13-2004, 09:23 PM
Quit trying to assume that Terry is incompetent. Steve Nash averaged 2.7 turnovers a game last year. Terry averaged 2.8.

Terry's 2.8 was better than Kidd, Francis, Marbury and Arenas.

This team may not be a top tier rebounding team again. It may not be as good at taking care of the ball, but it will be better defensively.

Captain Disaster
08-13-2004, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by: grndmstr_c

Who, Glandmaster?
Dude, that was lame.

By the way. Jason Terry averaged 3.7 TO's per 48 minutes as a point guard last year. Steve Nash averaged 3.8, so please chill with the clueless bellyaching.

How is that any more lame than Craptain?

Thanks for correcting my clueless bellyaching.

Here is the take off a fan from Atlanta off the ESPN site:

Jet is fast, very very fast faster than A.I.. He can take it to the hole and make tough shots and just as easy miss a lay up. He is not in any way shape or form close to an NBA point guard. He is clueless when it comes to running an offense and to be fair a bad defensive player mostly because of his size although with the quickness he has he should be a better defender than he is. When he is on shooting wise he is ON but when he is off he is OFF. He is horible on the fast break and his breaks usually result in a turnover and thats the magic word with J.T, TURNOVER. He makes dumb lazy passes and should not be allowed on the court in close games in the 4th quarter. J.T. would be better suited to be your first guard off the bench like we used to use Spud Webb in the Dominique days. He is not a cancer and is a good teamate, even when he lost his starting job to Sura he still didnt pout and played hard. He tried to get what few fans we had into the games and when we won in front of a packed house { which wasnt very often} he would grab the mike and give thanks to the fans and ask them to come out and support the Hawks. If Devon Harris is the real deal then Jet will be a nice bench player for you { like he was at Zona for Bibby} but if he is your starter and is relied upon to run your team you will want him traded by midseason or sooner. He makes the same mistakes over and over and if we had a tougher coach than Terry Stotts he would have been benched much more often then he was. Like I said he is not a bad guy and good in the community but just has a bonehead basketball brain.

grndmstr_c
08-13-2004, 09:51 PM
Fine, you just go ahead ignoring stats when it suits your negativity and letting posters from the ESPN message boards write up your opinions for you. Or, as an alternative, you could be a little more careful about selecting the sources you use in forming your opinions and then maybe, just maybe you could rise above being little more than a running joke on this board.

Captain Disaster
08-13-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by: grndmstr_c
Fine, you just go ahead ignoring stats when it suits your negativity and letting posters from the ESPN message boards write up your opinions for you. Or, as an alternative, you could be a little more careful about selecting the sources you use in forming your opinions and then maybe, just maybe you could rise above being little more than a running joke on this board.

Fine, you just go ahead ignoring opinions of people who have actually seen Terry play (as many did when we acquired Walker). Or as an alternative, you could be a little less insulting of anyone who doesn't share your current opinion, and maybe, just maybe your posts will rise above the level of hyperbole.

grndmstr_c
08-13-2004, 10:49 PM
CD, I don't think you know what hyperbole is. See, hyperbole would be if I was exagerrating in my appraisal of your reputation.

More substantively, do you even know who that poster on the Hawks board was? Is there any reason to suspect that his opinion is even remotely credible? And beyond that, let's get back to what started this whole thing. You've been telling anyone that would listen that the Mavs don't have any good ball handling. A number of people have come forward to disagree with you on that point, arguing among other things that Terry's handles are up to the task. These claims have been backed up by calling attention to Terry's TO stats, which compare quite favorably to Nash, who seems to be your benchmark. By contrast, I can't find one single thing you've brought to the debate that backs up your opinion that his handles aren't up to the task. The closest you've come is a paragraph written by some anonymous poster on one of the worst message boards this side of the Yangtze that doesn't even discuss his ball handling ability. In light of that, let me clear something up. I'm not going at you because your opinion is different than mine. I'm going at you because you have absolutely no good reason, at least not that you've communicated thus far, for holding that contrary opinion.

dirno2000
08-13-2004, 11:13 PM
Not trying to take sides, but there is a reason the be concerned about Terry's ball handling ability. You can't just look at turnovers when rating a players ball handling ability. Players like Kidd and Nash who are always trying to make plays are going to turn the ball over more. Conversely, it's hard to turn the ball over when you’re shooting it. For that reason, assist to turnover ratio is probably a better measure and that doesn’t look good. Terry ranked 36th among pg's while Nash ranked 4th.

I support the decision not to resign Nash, but Terry has some huge question marks.

Psychedelic Fuzz
08-13-2004, 11:46 PM
No one is saying he doesn't have question marks, but he's not the incompetent oaf some poeple would like us to believe.

A point guard who is also the main offensive option won't have a good as/to ratio. That doesn't translate to Finley type handles. There's no reason to think he's incapable of bringing the ball up the court.

It occurs to me that when Terry is compared to other so-called "scoring" or "shoot first" point guards/combo guards, he's the best at distributing the ball. His as/to ratio isn't pretty compared to Nash or Kidd, but his 1.91 is better than Francis, Lebron, and Gilbert Arenas.

grndmstr_c
08-13-2004, 11:48 PM
The problem with A/TO ratios, which are the same as the problem with TO's by themselves, is that they don't buy you much in terms of measuring ball handling ability specifically. It's great to point to Terry's mediocre assist totals last year and say that shooting instead of passing kept his TO's down, but the bottom line is that his TO's as a point are at a reasonable level. In fact, looking back two years to when Terry averaged 7.4 assists per game, his A/TO ratio was better than the following point guards: Jason Kidd, Baron Davis, Mike Bibby, Tony Parker, and Chauncy Billups. Beyond that, Terry's rep as a shooter is largely myth. Terry averaged about 15 scoring attempts per 35 minutes last year. By comparison, Steve averaged better than 16 scoring attempts per 35 minutes two years ago (last year he was hovering around 13).

dirno2000
08-13-2004, 11:56 PM
A point guard who is also the main offensive option won't have a good as/to ratio. That doesn't translate to Finley type handles. There's no reason to think he's incapable of bringing the ball up the court.I don't know if I buy that. Steph Starbury is the Knicks #1 offensive option and he ranks right behind Kidd in ATO.

I don't doubt that Terry can bring the ball up the court, but that's not saying much. The question is, can he efficiently run an offence that's loaded with guys who need touches. Hopefully the answer is yes.


It occurs to me that when Terry is compared to other so-called "scoring" or "shoot first" point guards/combo guards, he's the best at distributing the ball. His as/to ratio isn't pretty compared to Nash or Kidd, but his 1.91 is better than Francis, Lebron, and Gilbert Arenas.That's really not good company. I wouldn't want any of those three running the point for me. None of them are true pg's. That's why Francis always gets ripped on this board.

dirno2000
08-14-2004, 12:08 AM
The problem with A/TO ratios, which are the same as the problem with TO's by themselves, is that they don't buy you much in terms of measuring ball handling ability specifically. It's great to point to Terry's mediocre assist totals last year and say that shooting instead of passing kept his TO's down, but the bottom line is that his TO's as a point are at a reasonable level.No stat is perfect, but when it comes to judging a pg's ability to handle and more importantly, distribute the ball, ATO is a better gauge than looking at turnovers alone. It's just not fair to compare his turnover number to Nash's when Nash was taking more chances when it came to playmaking.


In fact, looking back two years to when Terry averaged 7.4 assists per game, his A/TO ratio was better than the following point guards: Jason Kidd, Baron Davis, Mike Bibby, Tony Parker, and Chauncy Billups.That's encouraging


Beyond that, Terry's rep as a shooter is largely myth. Terry averaged about 15 scoring attempts per 35 minutes last year. By comparison, Steve averaged better than 16 scoring attempts per 35 minutes two years ago (last year he was hovering around 13).Last year he ranked 5th in shots per game and 18th in assists per game among pg's. I wouldn't call his rep as a shooter a myth. Not that there's anything wrong with that if he can raise his %.

Captain Disaster
08-14-2004, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by: grndmstr_c
CD, I don't think you know what hyperbole is. See, hyperbole would be if I was exagerrating in my appraisal of your reputation.

More substantively, do you even know who that poster on the Hawks board was? Is there any reason to suspect that his opinion is even remotely credible? And beyond that, let's get back to what started this whole thing. You've been telling anyone that would listen that the Mavs don't have any good ball handling. A number of people have come forward to disagree with you on that point, arguing among other things that Terry's handles are up to the task. These claims have been backed up by calling attention to Terry's TO stats, which compare quite favorably to Nash, who seems to be your benchmark. By contrast, I can't find one single thing you've brought to the debate that backs up your opinion that his handles aren't up to the task. The closest you've come is a paragraph written by some anonymous poster on one of the worst message boards this side of the Yangtze that doesn't even discuss his ball handling ability. In light of that, let me clear something up. I'm not going at you because your opinion is different than mine. I'm going at you because you have absolutely no good reason, at least not that you've communicated thus far, for holding that contrary opinion.

I guess we'll see how credible he is very soon; I sure hope that you are correct and my worries are groundless, but to quote a famous movie character: "I have a bad feeling about this!"

Day1MavsFan
08-14-2004, 01:14 AM
I gotta agree with C.D. and Dirno on this one. I think Terry is a good player and will do well here, but to compare him to Steve Nash offensively is just ludicrous. Nash is an incredible offensive PG, the best in the league IMO. The Hawks style of play, compared to the Mavs, probably resulted in less possessions for them. This should have meant that Terry would have fewer turnovers than Nash, if he was as good. Of course, that would also explain less assists. Not only that, but for us to think that replacing the engine that made this car go will be easy, is being optimistic not realistic.
Yes, we have a lot of future potential on this team, with all the young players. But very few players on this roster have proven anything. They being Dirk, Fin, Bradley, & Stackhouse. All of the rest of the players are wanna-be's or very young. We don't know any of the following:

That Harris can play in the NBA.
That Daniels and Howard will continue to improve and be consistent, or even play as well as they did last year since they will be scouted better.
That Terry can lead a winning team.
That Stackhouse won't be a malcontent.
That Terry, Stackhouse, or Harris won't hog the ball, taking shots away from Dirk any less than did Walker.
That Nellie will get any of these players to play defense, regardless of whether or not they can.

We had a winning offensive formula with the Big 3 for several years. It is far more likely that we won't be as good next year, after losing Nash, than it is that we will be as good. To think that that chemistry can be found again so easily, is simply naive.
Defensively, we could and should be better. But will that make up for the loss in offense? Nash and Jamison are two very proficient and super-efficient offensive players. What did Jamison shoot? 53%?? Nash shot, what? 47% while taking a lot of 3s? We better be damn good on defense to make up for that.
Now, I'm glad we didn't match that contract for Nash, and I liked the Jamison trade, because ultimately I think we needed to get better defenders in order to win the whole thing. So, I'm not saying there is anything that Mark or Donnie should have done differently.
I am very optimistic about this team down the road, but for this year? It could all fall into place, sure. But look at the rosters of our competition and think about what those players have proven individually and collectively. And then look at ours and think about the same things. After that, consider that those other teams have a proven cohesiveness and that we don't. Let's not kid ourselves, there are a ton of question marks on this team compared to others in the West.

grndmstr_c
08-14-2004, 02:21 AM
I think Terry is a good player and will do well here, but to compare him to Steve Nash offensively is just ludicrous.If this were any other team than the Mavs, you'd be right. As it stands, though, this is the Mavs, Steve Nash was the Mavs all-star pg the last several years, and the guy who replaces him will be compared to him. If you're reading anything more into it than that, you're reading something into it that ain't there.

It is far more likely that we won't be as good next year, after losing Nash, than it is that we will be as good. To think that that chemistry can be found again so easily, is simply naive.If all we did this offseason was lose Nash I'd be right there with you, but that's not the only thing that happened. We saw last year that the Mavs were considerably better off going with a less talented, but more balanced lineup, and the roster this year is far better suited to a traditional rotation. If the question is do we figure to be as good as in 02/03, obviously that's a long shot. But to match last year's record seems very doable to me. Our two (by far) most ill-fitting players are no longer here, and that counts for something.