PDA

View Full Version : Where are the Nash-type trades?


chumdawg
01-21-2007, 11:44 PM
As we enter the NBA trading season, I wonder...where are the Nash-type deals?

As common wisdom has it, the Mavs traded Nash for Dampier and got better as a result.

Now, when you discuss trades, you don't ever discuss something like Nash for Dampier. But the Mavs did it, and they won in the offing.

So why not more trades like this? I'm talking about trades where a team takes a piece that is perceived as much more valuable than the other, but that knows the new piece will complement the team that much better.

Are the Mavs just that much more gutsy than other teams? Or was it just a once-in-a-lifetime confluence of player fits?

What I wonder is this: Should teams be more willing to trade their multiple All-Stars for role players who fit their teams well?

Are teams, besides the Mavericks, gutsy enough to do this? Do you think the results would be just as good for them as they were for the Mavericks? Why don't we see more of this type of deal?

kg_veteran
01-21-2007, 11:47 PM
It wasn't a trade, so I don't see your point.

Drbio
01-21-2007, 11:54 PM
You can't revise history to fit an anti-mavs agenda.

Rhylan
01-22-2007, 12:16 AM
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/frankenhooker/frankenhooker3.jpg

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 12:20 AM
It wasn't a trade, so I don't see your point.For all intents and purposes, it was. And I'm sure you will agree that a trade could be fashioned that would serve the same purpose.

I'm serious about this. Is there no other team that thinks outside the box enough to deal a multiple-All-Star for a role player, or set of role players, that will make their team that much better?

Are there no (other) GM's with so much cajones? Even if not, wouldn't they look at the example set by Nash-for-Dampier and try to follow suit?

kg_veteran
01-22-2007, 12:21 AM
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/frankenhooker/frankenhooker3.jpg

Wow. The genius of Dooby is invoked.

Where is Dooby, anyway?

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 12:24 AM
It is a shame to me that certain of you are glossing over what is certainly something that hard-working GM's consider very carefully.

kg_veteran
01-22-2007, 12:26 AM
For all intents and purposes, it was.

No, it wasn't.

capitalcity
01-22-2007, 12:26 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/365594375_181776031c.jpg

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 12:30 AM
No, it wasn't.If your claim is that it wasn't in the early going, I will reluctanctly agree (though I think it's not quite close to the truth). But it without question was in retrospect. How do you claim otherwise?

Drbio
01-22-2007, 12:31 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/365594375_181776031c.jpg

OMG!!!!!!!

HAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 12:34 AM
The gay cartoons--and the inevitable Doc-without-an-original-thought-of-his-own--aside...I'm serious about this. Why hasn't the Nash trade yet sparked off a number of similar trades around the league?

Drbio
01-22-2007, 12:35 AM
The corny and inane Nash nuthugging cumdawg schtick aside....this thread is a waste of bandwidth.

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 12:37 AM
DrBio...I realize that you only once in a half-year or so come up with an original thought...but if it worked so well for the Mavs, why don't more teams do it?

Drbio
01-22-2007, 12:39 AM
Still trying to play that lame broken record schtick chum? Figures. It's all you have anymore. Of course it couldn't be you that is the problem on this forum....it must be 100% of everyone else. The Nash nutsack juice has really scrambled your brain.

Dirkadirkastan
01-22-2007, 12:39 AM
Iverson? Maybe Gasol?

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 12:42 AM
Iverson? Maybe Gasol?I would agree with you on Iverson.

But that trade was forced upon them.

Where are the teams that have the foresight the Mavericks had?

dirno2000
01-22-2007, 12:56 AM
Wasn't foresight, it just turned out that way...but obviously you already know that. Where are you trying to go?

fluid.forty.one
01-22-2007, 12:59 AM
Where are the teams that have the foresight the Mavericks had?

Those teams didn't make the 2006 nba finals. Maybe they should take a page out of the Mavericks book.

Hopefully we win a championship with Damp, because we never could with Nash. That will turn out to be a pretty freaking awesome "trade" in retrospect if we win one or more championships and the Suns don't. We'll see.

So far I like how it turned out, good job head-maverick-people.

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 01:00 AM
Wasn't foresight, it just turned out that way...but obviously you already know that. Where are you trying to go?Whether it was hindsight or foresight is immaterial. It is what it is. Where are the other trades that follow suit?

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 01:03 AM
Those teams didn't make the 2006 nba finals. Maybe they should take a page out of the Mavericks book.

Hopefully we win a championship with Damp, because we never could with Nash. That will turn out to be a pretty freaking awesome "trade" in retrospect if we win one or more championships and the Suns don't. We'll see.

So far I like how it turned out, good job head-maverick-people.See...THAT's what I'm wondering! Why aren't other teams saying "We won't win a championship with Parker" or with Kidd or with Brand or with Garnett or with whoever else. Will their GM's start to make shrewd moves like the Mavs did?

dirno2000
01-22-2007, 01:04 AM
Whether it was hindsight or foresight is immaterial. It is what it is. Where are the other trades that follow suit?

immeterial?

Chumdawg: Where are the teams that have the foresight the Mavericks had?

Thespiralgoeson
01-22-2007, 01:10 AM
See...THAT's what I'm wondering! Why aren't other teams saying "We won't win a championship with Parker"

You mean Tony Parker? Well... if the Spurs aren't saying that, I imagine it's because they've won two championships with him.

Drbio
01-22-2007, 01:11 AM
You mean Tony Parker? Well... if the Spurs aren't saying that, I imagine it's because they've won two championships with him.

Silly facts always get in the way.

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 01:26 AM
You mean Tony Parker? Well... if the Spurs aren't saying that, I imagine it's because they've won two championships with him.I would expect that GM's are looking to make their teams better in the future. Do you think that Buford imagines his team winning several more with Parker at the helm?

Perhaps he could trade him for someone like a Damp. Or...you know...whatever weakness they have. But I would think that the 5 is certainly a good starting point, wouldn't you?

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 01:28 AM
immeterial?

Chumdawg: Where are the teams that have the foresight the Mavericks had?That's exactly what I'm wondering, Dirno.

Specifically, I'm wondering why teams (or even media) haven't taken note of the way the Mavs "got better" by trading Nash away, and aren't looking for inventive ways to do the same.

It would seem that the NBA is filled with stodgy old types that insist on talent-for-talent and aren't ready to make such a forward-looking move.

I do believe that it's a legitimate question. I mean, the proof is in the pudding.

Thespiralgoeson
01-22-2007, 01:29 AM
I would expect that GM's are looking to make their teams better in the future. Do you think that Buford imagines his team winning several more with Parker at the helm?

Perhaps he could trade him for someone like a Damp. Or...you know...whatever weakness they have. But I would think that the 5 is certainly a good starting point, wouldn't you?

Sure, they could use an upgrade at the 5... and the 3 as well.. and their entire bench...

Thespiralgoeson
01-22-2007, 01:31 AM
That's exactly what I'm wondering, Dirno.

Specifically, I'm wondering why teams (or even media) haven't taken note of the way the Mavs "got better" by trading Nash away, and aren't looking for inventive ways to do the same.

It would seem that the NBA is filled with stodgy old types that insist on talent-for-talent and aren't ready to make such a forward-looking move.

I do believe that it's a legitimate question. I mean, the proof is in the pudding.

Those other teams don't have Dirk Nowitzki.

dirno2000
01-22-2007, 01:41 AM
That's exactly what I'm wondering, Dirno.

Specifically, I'm wondering why teams (or even media) haven't taken note of the way the Mavs "got better" by trading Nash away, and aren't looking for inventive ways to do the same.

It would seem that the NBA is filled with stodgy old types that insist on talent-for-talent and aren't ready to make such a forward-looking move.

I do believe that it's a legitimate question. I mean, the proof is in the pudding.

Why can't the Kings (or any other team for that matter) trade another aging shooting guard for for a young MVP cailiber power forward? Why can't the Pistons (or anybody else) trade a star small forward and get back a journeyman type center who would go on to win defensive player of the year?

We're not dealing with comodities here. Each player and each situation is unique. When you opportunity arises you jump on it.

what we did isn't really repeatable unless a team is in the exact situation that we were in.

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 01:45 AM
That's not entirely fair, Dirno. Dampier wasn't exactly a unique commodity.

Or...was he?

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 01:47 AM
Why can't the Kings (or any other team for that matter) trade another aging shooting guard for for a young MVP cailiber power forward? Why can't the Pistons (or anybody else) trade a star small forward and get back a journeyman type center who would go on to win defensive player of the year?

We're not dealing with comodities here. Each player and each situation is unique. When you opportunity arises you jump on it.

what we did isn't really repeatable unless a team is in the exact situation that we were in.I guess the good question would be this: What could the Pistons get for Billups? And wouldn't one of those options be the wise one?

Thespiralgoeson
01-22-2007, 01:47 AM
That's not entirely fair, Dirno. Dampier wasn't exactly a unique commodity.

Or...was he?

Unique? Maybe not. Valuble? Certainly.

dirno2000
01-22-2007, 01:58 AM
That's not entirely fair, Dirno. Dampier wasn't exactly a unique commodity.

Or...was he?

He was one of the best rebounding centers in the game, he was a solid low post defender and, most importantly, he was available. So yes, he was uniques.

I'm not sure about the Billups thing. Like spriral said, they don't have Dirk or a player of his caliber.

Again, I doubt it's repeatable.

fluid.forty.one
01-22-2007, 02:02 AM
Chum.

When scientists do experiments they only have one Independant Variable. You know why? That's so they can be certain on what's changing the Dependant Variable.

When Mavs went through the transition from pretender to contender, they changed a whole bunch of things. The roster is almost completely different, the coach is different, mark has a cool looking goatee now. Who KNOWS what made the difference. To say trading Nash for Damp straight up made us a world better, doesn't make sense unless you look at the big picture which is something you refuse to do. What you're doing is cutting out a little bit of it and you're satirically examining it closely so you can make a point.

What really happened with that whole thing is

a: We got Avery. Defense. We go to the finals. We finally beat the spurs. Blah blah blah.

b: We got rid of nash. He wanted too much money, and thank god he went. Avery wants defense. Can you imagine how annoyed you'd be all season if Nash kept getting benched because opposing Point Guards kept setting career records against him? Avery would not tolerate that.

c: We got Damp. We finally have a center. Ahmygod no more Shawn Bradley. We have a legitimate big man inside. Don't look now, but here comes Diop! Now we have two big men! This whole team looks different.

d: We changed every other player on the team besides Dirk, Josh, and Devin. And too be honest, all those players are a lot different and a lot better than they were back then.

So basically you're taking a team. Changing all of the pieces, and then saying only one or two of the moves caused the entire transformation.

I suppose the troll/point you're trying to make is that we could have done all this with Nash, or you're somehow saying we shouldn't have gotten rid of Nash, or even the ever-awesome "Cuban sucks monkey balls" argument.

But it all boils down to the fact that we are better off without Nash because Nash doesn't play defense, and defense gets you to the finals and defense wins championships. And I know that's what us MAVS fans are looking for.


edit - As for why other teams don't do what we did, they do it ALL the time. We basically blew up our roster and we have an almost entirely new one, AND a new head coach.

Teams blow up their roster, great players are traded, and they rebuild. Iverson is a recent example. T-Mac has been traded. Vince Carter has been traded. Steve Nash has been "traded" apparently.

SHAQ in all his glory has been traded. Most of those trades, to my knowledge, did not involve another STAR of their original players caliber going back to their team.

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 02:05 AM
So, FFO, you are saying that we were able to creat an environment where we could trade Nash for pennies on the dollar, so to speak, and come out better.

Why don't more teams do this?

dirno2000
01-22-2007, 02:07 AM
Creating the environment is the hard part.

rabbitproof
01-22-2007, 02:10 AM
I have one.

Multiple All-Star PF who had played deep into the playoffs for Never All-Star who is more of a combo guard and is not a pure 1 or pure 2.

Team recieving multiple all-star PF doesn't even last the season with him before returning him to sender's sender.

Team recieving never all-star combo guard makes it to finals in a couple years.

Can you name these players??

fluid.forty.one
01-22-2007, 02:12 AM
Chum you also have to keep in mind that prior to Nash being a mighty Sun, he wasn't considered an MVP caliber player what-so-ever.

So if you're saying "why don't more teams trade all-star, but not hall of fame, 2nd best talent on the team players for roleplayers that fit their team better" I bet there are even more instances than the ones I listed.

Not really seeing your point here, I don't know why you won't be more straight up. Satire is fun for awhile, but usually Satire cuts to the point. I'm waitin'.

fluid.forty.one
01-22-2007, 02:13 AM
I have one.

Multiple All-Star PF who had played deep into the playoffs for Never All-Star who is more of a combo guard and is not a pure 1 or pure 2.

Team recieving multiple all-star PF doesn't even last the season with him before returning him to sender's sender.

Team recieving never all-star combo guard makes it to finals in a couple years.

Can you name these players??

I can't for the life of me remember who we traded for Terry, but I'm guessing it was Walker

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 02:21 AM
The crux of my argument is to wonder why teams insist on dollar-for-dollar in terms of player ability. Anyone in his right mind would have given Dampier for Nash way back when. And evidently that trade is just what Dallas needed.

So why don't more teams do this? Was it just that Dallas had so many assets available?

rabbitproof
01-22-2007, 02:30 AM
Such a trade leads to a dramatic identity transformation so to start looking for such a mythical trade, ya gotta name another team that's done it as quickly or as successfully as Los Mavericks from Nellie to Lil'General.

And the answer is nobody. :)

Thespiralgoeson
01-22-2007, 03:06 AM
Chum, I see what you're getting at, and it's clever. Okay, the Mavs got better in spite of losing Nash, not because of losing him. Letting Nash walk in order to sign Damp was a stupid move on Cuban's part. Okay, we get it. Nash is a three-time MVP, and Erick Dampier is nobody. Gotcha.

But if we're talking about foresight and hindsight, let's really look at this thing objectively. Honestly Chum, I'm really trying to meet with you on this thing. I'm really stepping outside of myself right now, and I hope you would do the same.

Let's put this all in perspective. It's the 2004 offseason. The Mavs just lost in the first round to Sacramento 4-1. The West is overcrowded with teams contending for the title. The Lakers, Kings, Wolves, and Spurs all appear to be superior to the Mavs. With the possible exception of the Kings, those teams all have an interior presence of some kind. Shaquille O'Neal and Tim Duncan have been walking all over the Mavs for years.

Do even remember the 04 season, Chum? I can't say I blame you if you don't, because we've all tried pretty hard to forget. But sersiously, do you remember how ridiculous the situation was? Nellie was trying something different each night, desperately trying to find a rotation that worked. Sometimes he'd start Dirk at 5, sometimes he'd start Danny Fortson, and ultimately ended up settling on Walker. Think about that for a second, Chum. Danny Fortson, and Antoine Walker.... Let us also remember the Rigadeau-like signings of guys like Scott Williams and Mamadou N'diaye. To put it mildly, it was obvious that the Mavericks were never going to get past those other teams without a serviceable starting center.

Enter Erick Dampier. Cleans the glass like few others, pretty good interior defender, basically makes his presence felt in the paint, AND he's a restricted free agent at the end of the season. Seems like a perfect fit for the Mavs. Coming off a great season, and is highly recommended by your new assistant coach/future head coach.

So here's the plan if you're Mark Cuban; get Dampier, re-sign Nash, trade Jamison for another sixth man and a back-up for Nash (remember, Harris was originally intented to be Nash's backup, and backup point had been a big problem for us that year). I don't know what Cuban/Nellie/Donnie originally intended to do with Walker before the Nash debacle, trade him for more depth maybe, who knows. Nevermind that.

Assuming everything goes smoothly, to start the next season, you have a lineup of

Nash/Finley/Howard/Dirk/Damp
plus Harris, Stackhouse, Daniels, Bradley, and any combination of other players on the bench.

Sounds fantastic. But then something happens. Nash gets an offer from Phoenix that Cuban (and everyone else for that matter) never thought anyone would give him. What do you do if you're Marc Cuban? This fucks up your plan (or Nellie's plan, or Donnie's plan... whatever) What are your options? You can-

A: Match Phoenix's offer, forget about Dampier, hope you can get another serviceable center and take your chances.

B: Sign both Nash and Dampier (if that's even possible), and just not even think about what will happen when its contract time for Nowitzki and Howard.

C: Let Nash walk, sign Dampier, trade Walker for a serviceable point guard, and take your chances.

Whatever you do, you're taking a pretty big risk. So Cuban decides to go with C.

What happens? Well, it's an adjustment for sure, but for the most part a pretty smooth transition (thank you, Dirk) The Mavs win 6 more games than the previous season, finish with the second best record in franchise history, and look to be better next season. And I don't care what anybody says; Erick Dampier performed as well as anyone should have expected him to do. All in all, things are pretty damn good.

On the other hand, Steve Nash went on to win three MVP's and the Suns ended up eliminating the Mavs that year, and will stay a major player in the West for several years. Not so good.

Yeah, "Nash for Dampier' sounds utterly, utterly, ridiculous when you look at it through the lense of what ended up happening, but if you look at it through the lense of what the situation was in July 2004, maybe it isn't that hard to imagine what Cuban was thinking?

Chum, I don't care what you, or anyone else says now. Nobody, and I mean nobody imagined Nash would go on to have the kind of success he's had in Phoenix. Sure, he was a "multiple all-star" as you put it. But in 2004, at least as far as anyone could see, he was a "multiple all-star" in the same way that Antoine Walker and Michael Finley were "multiple all-stars." Mark Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and indeed the entire basketball world (with the exception of course of the Colangelos, Don Nelson, and apparently you, chum, or at least you would have us think) had every reason to believe that Steve Nash was on the downside of his career, that his best days were behind him, and that he probably start to drop off well before that contract ended. At least I know that's what I thought.

He proved me, and everyone else wrong. He got himself in the best shape of his life, and played on an entirely different level than he'd ever played before. Nobody could've forseen that. I know I didn't, and so I don't begrudge Mark Cuban for not seeing it either, although you insist on doing so.

In hindsight, with the information available to us now, that is, knowing what kind of player Nash really is, of course Nash for Dampier is absurd. But once more I say try to remember the summer of 2004. In that respect, I really don't think it's that ridiculous to "trade" a 30 year old-former two-time all-star point guard, for a near 30 year old center who can rebound and defend, when your team desperately, desperately, DESPERATELY needs a center, and had for a few years. And do try to remember that Erick Dampier was seen quite a bit differently by the world in 2004 than he is today. That summer he was the most sought-after free agent in the NBA (certainly more than Steve Nash) It wasn't until after he made his imfamous "second best center" comment, and Nash started tearing it up in Phoenix that Damp replaced Shawn Bradley as everyone's favorite punchline.

In retrospect, sure, we'd be better off if we'd kept Nash. Hell, forget about how much better the Mavs would be. I'd give Nash the extra money, just to keep him away from Phoenix. But the decision wasn't nearly as illogical or stupid as you have often tried to convince me of, Chum.

The bottom line is, none of us really know what would have happened had Nash remained a Maverick. We can all speculate. Maybe we would've won a championship, maybe we would've lost to the Spurs again. Hell, it deserves its own thread, really. Here's what I do know for sure:

The whole thing would look a lot worse if we hadn't ended up with the tandem of Terry and Harris as our insurance policy. And lastly, Nash would never have made the All-NBA first team, let alone MVP... let alone two MVP's... let alone three.

spreedom
01-22-2007, 06:52 AM
pwned.

shaw-xx
01-22-2007, 07:11 AM
Sorry, it wasn't a trade and more than anything I don't want to think much about Nash. - -

mary
01-22-2007, 08:37 AM
He proved me, and everyone else wrong. He got himself in the best shape of his life, and played on an entirely different level than he'd ever played before. Nobody could've forseen that. I know I didn't, and so I don't begrudge Mark Cuban for not seeing it either, although you insist on doing so.


If one recognizes that Nash made a concerted effort to get in better shape when he signed with Phoenix, don't you then have to concede that he was shirking his professional responsibilities while he was wearing a Maverick uniform?

The Crippler
01-22-2007, 09:09 AM
If one recognizes that Nash made a concerted effort to get in better shape when he signed with Phoenix, don't you then have to concede that he was shirking his professional responsibilities while he was wearing a Maverick uniform?


Thank you for this Mary. This is the one reason that I wish for Nash's failure. He didn't give it his all obviously when he was in Dallas as he was not training to his full capabilities and was more worried about partying Uptown instead.

That is the mark of a loser.

jthig32
01-22-2007, 09:18 AM
That was fantastic Spiral.

And Mary, good point from you as well. I continue to believe that had we resigned Nash he'd be playing on a level SEVERAL rungs below his current play.

kg_veteran
01-22-2007, 09:48 AM
It was NOT a trade. It was not even a quasi-trade, because the Mavs did not have some sort of "either-or" scenario where they could make one move, but not both. The Dampier acquisition didn't occur until well after Nash was gone.

I know Cuban has linked Nash and Dampier with subsequent comments, but that is just after-the-fact justification of the decision to let Nash leave. It was not something that was contemplated at the time Cuban made the decision not to match.

u2sarajevo
01-22-2007, 10:25 AM
It was a trade that got Dampier here. A sign and trade that had NOTHING to do with Nash as he had already started getting himself in tip top shape for Phoenix to enjoy.

The fact that we got the Dampier deal done while Nash wasn't here proves that had Nash taken Cuban's offer we still could have gotten Damp.

For anyone needing a refresher we sent Eduardo Najera, Christian Laettner, the draft rights to guards Luis Flores and Mladen Sekularac, and 2 first round picks for Damp, Esch, and Dickau.

kg_veteran
01-22-2007, 10:44 AM
It was a trade that got Dampier here. A sign and trade that had NOTHING to do with Nash as he had already started getting himself in tip top shape for Phoenix to enjoy.

The fact that we got the Dampier deal done while Nash wasn't here proves that had Nash taken Cuban's offer we still could have gotten Damp.

For anyone needing a refresher we sent Eduardo Najera, Christian Laettner, the draft rights to guards Luis Flores and Mladen Sekularac, and 2 first round picks for Damp, Esch, and Dickau.

That's right. Cuban has said that he decided to use the money he "saved" when Nash left by adding Dampier to the payroll via sign and trade. He has stated/implied that if he had signed Nash that Dampier would have been outside of his spending parameters due to salary cap/payroll implications. One thing that is clear, however, is that the realistic option to acquire Dampier did not come up until after Nash was gone. Whether Nash was re-signed or not, Dampier was not part of the decision-making process. Whether Cuban really would have acquired Dampier had Nash actually been retained is one of those questions to which we will never know the answer.

Rhylan
01-22-2007, 11:05 AM
Thank you for this Mary. This is the one reason that I wish for Nash's failure. He didn't give it his all obviously when he was in Dallas as he was not training to his full capabilities and was more worried about partying Uptown instead.

That is the mark of a loser.

Amen. I always liked the guy when he was here, through petering out every spring, even through the dismal 2004 playoffs. We just assumed that was Nash busting his ass as much as he could.

I want to like him now, but it's hard considering the apparent lifestyle changes. I personally have always thought it had a lot to do with having kids and getting married. Good for him, but it shows a character flaw while in Dallas that makes it hard for me to root for the guy anymore.

kg_veteran
01-22-2007, 11:16 AM
Amen. I always liked the guy when he was here, through petering out every spring, even through the dismal 2004 playoffs. We just assumed that was Nash busting his ass as much as he could.

I want to like him now, but it's hard considering the apparent lifestyle changes. I personally have always thought it had a lot to do with having kids and getting married. Good for him, but it shows a character flaw while in Dallas that makes it hard for me to root for the guy anymore.

This is really the only reason I dislike Nash now. I don't blame him for taking the money, but I do blame him for not giving 100% for the Mavs like he has for the Suns.

chumdawg
01-22-2007, 11:16 AM
That's right. Cuban has said that he decided to use the money he "saved" when Nash left by adding Dampier to the payroll via sign and trade. He has stated/implied that if he had signed Nash that Dampier would have been outside of his spending parameters due to salary cap/payroll implications. One thing that is clear, however, is that the realistic option to acquire Dampier did not come up until after Nash was gone. Whether Nash was re-signed or not, Dampier was not part of the decision-making process. Whether Cuban really would have acquired Dampier had Nash actually been retained is one of those questions to which we will never know the answer.Of course. The question I am asking is not "Was the Nash/Damp thing a trade?" The question is why don't more teams look at what happened in Dallas--the kind of thing they could easily achieve by trade--and think outside the box? In other words, why don't more teams take what is perceived as the worse part of the deal, in an effort to get better?

kg_veteran
01-22-2007, 11:27 AM
Of course. The question I am asking is not "Was the Nash/Damp thing a trade?" The question is why don't more teams look at what happened in Dallas--the kind of thing they could easily achieve by trade--and think outside the box? In other words, why don't more teams take what is perceived as the worse part of the deal, in an effort to get better?

I see.

FWIW, in the summer of 2004 I'm not completely certain that a Nash for Dampier trade would have been viewed as a lopsided trade. It certainly would be now. Anyway, I'd have to say that most of the time circumstance forces teams to deal players capable of All-Star play (Nash wasn't an All-Star in 03-04, was he?); they usually look to build around them rather than trade them away. Perhaps it's because there are a lot more role players around than there are All-Stars, and teams figure they can acquire another role player more easily than they can acquire another All-Star.

dirno2000
01-22-2007, 11:28 AM
Of course. The question I am asking is not "Was the Nash/Damp thing a trade?" The question is why don't more teams look at what happened in Dallas--the kind of thing they could easily achieve by trade--and think outside the box? In other words, why don't more teams take what is perceived as the worse part of the deal, in an effort to get better?

Would a Damp and Jason Terry for Steve Nash deal have looked that one sided in the summer of 2004?

jthig32
01-22-2007, 11:29 AM
Would a Damp and Jason Terry for Steve Nash deal have looked that one sided in the summer of 2004?

Not in the slightest.

kg_veteran
01-22-2007, 11:31 AM
Would a Damp and Jason Terry for Steve Nash deal have looked that one sided in the summer of 2004?

Not at all, especially if it were a sign-and-trade deal.

FINtastic
01-22-2007, 11:37 AM
Of course. The question I am asking is not "Was the Nash/Damp thing a trade?" The question is why don't more teams look at what happened in Dallas--the kind of thing they could easily achieve by trade--and think outside the box? In other words, why don't more teams take what is perceived as the worse part of the deal, in an effort to get better?

You have to consider the marketing aspect too. If you trade an all-star, you've just lost a very marketable player. You've lost jersey sales and possibly ticket sales depending on your record. Now if everything works out and you end up with a better record, then you probably don't see a dip in ticket sales. If things don't work out and you end up with the same record, then you might have lost the faction of ticket sales that went to people who came to the "Nash-type" player (surely no one is coming to the Mavs games right now for the likes of Erick Dampier). And if things screw up miserably and you have a noticeably worse record, then you are really in trouble. Sometimes you have to weigh the risks, and I imagine for some owners, it ain't worth it.

kg_veteran
01-22-2007, 11:39 AM
You have to consider the marketing aspect too. If you trade an all-star, you've just lost a very marketable player. You've lost jersey sales and possibly ticket sales depending on your record. Now if everything works out and you end up with a better record, then you probably don't see a dip in ticket sales. If things don't work out and you end up with the same record, then you might have lost the faction of ticket sales that went to people who came to the "Nash-type" player (surely no one is coming to the Mavs games right now for the likes of Erick Dampier). And if things screw up miserably and you have a noticeably worse record, then you are really in trouble. Sometimes you have to weigh the risks, and I imagine for some owners, it ain't worth it.

Good point.

Thespiralgoeson
01-22-2007, 03:35 PM
Would a Damp and Jason Terry for Steve Nash deal have looked that one sided in the summer of 2004?

As long as we're looking at the big picture of the 2004 offseason, and seeing everything as a "trade" as chum suggests, then lets consider this the biggest trade in NBA history.

Steve Nash
Antoine Walker
Antawn Jamison
Eddie Najera
Tony Delk
Danny Forston
and others

for

Erick Dampier
Jason Terry
Jerry Stackhouse
draft rights to Devin Harris
Alan Henderson
Calvin Booth
and others

Really, in 2004, that doesn't look lopsided AT ALL. Indeed, is it inconceivable that the Mavs got the better end of the deal? Well, since Nash is a three-time MVP, it's hard to say so. But if Nash was the same guy in Phoenix that he was in Dallas, I'd say the Mavs did pretty damn good.

Let us also not forget the "trade" of Don Nelson for Avery Johnson.

fluid.forty.one
01-22-2007, 05:19 PM
We must be the smartest team in basketball.

Mavs Rule
01-22-2007, 07:17 PM
Nash could have been an MVP of the pro soccor league too:

http://broadband.nba.com/cc/playa.php?content=video&url=http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/nba/nbacom/nbatv/nash_kicks_ball_into_hoop_070117.asx&video=blank&nbasite=nba

Drbio
01-22-2007, 10:19 PM
This thread was doomed to stupid by post #1.

alexamenos
01-22-2007, 11:18 PM
As we enter the NBA trading season, I wonder...where are the Nash-type deals?

As common wisdom has it, the Mavs traded Nash for Dampier and got better as a result.

Now, when you discuss trades, you don't ever discuss something like Nash for Dampier. But the Mavs did it, and they won in the offing.

So why not more trades like this? I'm talking about trades where a team takes a piece that is perceived as much more valuable than the other, but that knows the new piece will complement the team that much better.

Are the Mavs just that much more gutsy than other teams? Or was it just a once-in-a-lifetime confluence of player fits?

What I wonder is this: Should teams be more willing to trade their multiple All-Stars for role players who fit their teams well?

Are teams, besides the Mavericks, gutsy enough to do this? Do you think the results would be just as good for them as they were for the Mavericks? Why don't we see more of this type of deal?

I imagine that in a world where all franchises have a perfect ability to forsee the future, these types of things might happen frequently. But then again, with perfect foresight we might all know that a 30 year old point guard is going to take his game to whole new level, in which case might happily give him a huge raise and agree to pay him $10 million per year when he hits his mid 30's, even tho Mike Bibby had made him look like his little bitch during a playoff series loss which ended an utterly forgettable year.

fwiw....I'm still way pissed about the Cowboys letting Ken Norton Jr go, and don't even get me started on the rangers.....

Jeff Burroughs for Adrian Devine??? You gotta be kidding me.

(for those of you who don't get the reference, Jeff Burroughs won back to back NL MVPs for the braves, as I recall, immediately after leaving the rangers)

anyhoo....

The Mavs took a big step backwards in '04, and only a fool would have, ummm, stayed the course.

jamison for Stack and Harris -- I still like that deal, and might like it even more after harris develops for another year or two....

walker for Jet -- no wonder the Hawks are bottom feeders....

signing a 12 & 12 center -- seemed like a great idea at the time, tho it hasn't been all roses....

not matching the Suns gazillion dollar multi-decade offer to a point guard who'd just been bitchslapped by Mike Bibby -- not an easy call, even in hindsight....

you win some, you lose some.

all the whiney bitchey 'i'm oh so mad at cuban for letting nash and fin go' stuff is just silly. organizations have to make tough choices every day (Herschel Walker for a bunch of draft picks, are you kiddin' me?).....

cheers

revere
01-23-2007, 01:33 AM
At the time, the only person i would hated to see go more would have been Dirk. Now I respect the decision and in fairness think there have been far greater blunders by the Mav's in trades etc.

Foresight like losing Traylor for Dirk, not a popular decision at the time...But it's easy in hindsight to pick and choose and say it was a no-brainer.

Dampier was the best option at center, at the time, that we could get. He also had history with Avery and Avery took responsibility sink or swim for the decision. I think the results speak for themselves. Also remember that an effort was made to get Shaq which would obviously require some capital. As great as Steve Nash is there is obviously a huge shortage of Big men...at the time no fan would argue that.

Is your position is that we would be better with Nash and Bradley. Would we have been better with Shaq sitting the bench? What center should we have gone after? We definitely weren't better with a Suns run and gun approach.

Also remember that an offer was extended to Nash by the Mavs but not as good as the Suns offer. During the negotiations Nash was informed that the Suns had designed an offensive system around him, he would be the star etc... We could have easily matched or beaten their offer and still lost him. Two offers were extended and he obviously chose one which is a completely different scenario than a trade. I would like to have seen Mark match the offer but it's his money.

The end result is ideal in that the Sun's record improved and the Mav's record improved. The Mav's have gone deeper into the playoff than ever and coincidentally deeper than the Suns under Steve Nash stellar performance in the same time frame even though there was a coaching change. All stats and awards aside that is ultimately the goal of the organization. In fairness to your question, it could have gone a lot differently but fortunately in my opinion it didn't.

Joey
01-23-2007, 03:31 PM
I am confused...Dallas had forsight to believe that in 5 years Nash would break down. Tony Cubes didn't have forsight thinking that the Mavs couldn't have won with Nash. He believed they could but in four years...not 5.

Nash wasn't "traded", that is revisionist history. Steve took the money after only two weeks of free agency. No negotiations no nothing. The money saved ended up going to Damp, but not because of a Nash "trade".

This isn't forsight, this was necessity.

bernardos70
01-23-2007, 05:29 PM
We can't speculate these type of trades yet. We must first wait til our only multi All-star caliber player's contract is about to expire and he's just about ready to accept the very first offer from another team on the very first day he can accept that contract. We shall discuss it when Nowitzki's recently extended contract is over sometime in 08 or 09.