Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

SeriousSummer · 08-20-2004, 02:09 PM

I don't think losing Finley will make the team much worse. As he ages he is becoming more and more one dimensional--as a spot up shooter. He's a weak ball-handler as a two and a weak rebounder as a three, and as he gets older his defense is bound to suffer.

I still think he has value and is a better player than A. Davis, who admittedly isn't that great. If we could get Marion, then he and Josh Howard get all the minutes at the three. Daniels should get the bulk of the minutes at the two. He's a better ball handler, better defender and better rebounder than Finley. He isn't as consistent as an outside shooter. Admittedly, Josh Howard doesn't help as an outside shooter. Perhaps Terry, Harris, Stefansson or Dickau will develop enough to give the Mavs a few minutes at guard.

So there is a need Finley fills, but it's one of the easier needs in the league to find someone to fill. This is especially true because Finley doesn't have a quick release.

A. Davis only gets minutes when Dirk rests, so he doesn't make a large contribution, but it is a role we need filled. In fact, it's almost the only role on

I guess the bottom line is that I think we need to play someone that plays more athletically at the 2/3 than Finley does. Not that Finley is short on natural athleticism, but except to rise straight up and shoot, he rarely uses it in his game.

I also look at the chances of winning a championship somewhat differently. If you don't have a dominating team, and I don't think the Mavs have or will have one, then the next best chance is to have a good team that competes year after year and hope that you finally break through. I think, in the current NBA, that requires good financial management. Owners like Mark Cuban or the Maloofs may be willing to lose money (even a lot of money) over the short term. Over the long term, the team needs to be profitable.

In other words, I'd break the bank to Shaq and Dirk together. I wouldn't pay the luxury tax to keep Mike Finley. If we weren't doing that, then maybe Mark Cuban would feel that he could have kept Steve Nash.

Or in three years maybe he'll feel that he can afford to pay MBenga and Josh Howard enough to keep them (if they are worth it). If he's still paying on Finley's contract--and having it doubled by luxury tax--he may decide he has to let MBenga or Howard go (or Podkolzine the next year).

If the Mavs can drop a couple of contracts over the next two years, then they ought to remain at least contenders of some sort so long as Dirk plays at a high level. That should be for another three to six years if he avoids serious injury. I think the Mavs should look at remaining competitive for that entire time, and that means trying to avoid contracts that result in paying players when they can't contribute (in an amount equal to their cost) for the time period.

08-20-2004, 02:09 PM	#22
SeriousSummer Golden Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,589	RE:Roster trimming trade I don't think losing Finley will make the team much worse. As he ages he is becoming more and more one dimensional--as a spot up shooter. He's a weak ball-handler as a two and a weak rebounder as a three, and as he gets older his defense is bound to suffer. I still think he has value and is a better player than A. Davis, who admittedly isn't that great. If we could get Marion, then he and Josh Howard get all the minutes at the three. Daniels should get the bulk of the minutes at the two. He's a better ball handler, better defender and better rebounder than Finley. He isn't as consistent as an outside shooter. Admittedly, Josh Howard doesn't help as an outside shooter. Perhaps Terry, Harris, Stefansson or Dickau will develop enough to give the Mavs a few minutes at guard. So there is a need Finley fills, but it's one of the easier needs in the league to find someone to fill. This is especially true because Finley doesn't have a quick release. A. Davis only gets minutes when Dirk rests, so he doesn't make a large contribution, but it is a role we need filled. In fact, it's almost the only role on I guess the bottom line is that I think we need to play someone that plays more athletically at the 2/3 than Finley does. Not that Finley is short on natural athleticism, but except to rise straight up and shoot, he rarely uses it in his game. I also look at the chances of winning a championship somewhat differently. If you don't have a dominating team, and I don't think the Mavs have or will have one, then the next best chance is to have a good team that competes year after year and hope that you finally break through. I think, in the current NBA, that requires good financial management. Owners like Mark Cuban or the Maloofs may be willing to lose money (even a lot of money) over the short term. Over the long term, the team needs to be profitable. In other words, I'd break the bank to Shaq and Dirk together. I wouldn't pay the luxury tax to keep Mike Finley. If we weren't doing that, then maybe Mark Cuban would feel that he could have kept Steve Nash. Or in three years maybe he'll feel that he can afford to pay MBenga and Josh Howard enough to keep them (if they are worth it). If he's still paying on Finley's contract--and having it doubled by luxury tax--he may decide he has to let MBenga or Howard go (or Podkolzine the next year). If the Mavs can drop a couple of contracts over the next two years, then they ought to remain at least contenders of some sort so long as Dirk plays at a high level. That should be for another three to six years if he avoids serious injury. I think the Mavs should look at remaining competitive for that entire time, and that means trying to avoid contracts that result in paying players when they can't contribute (in an amount equal to their cost) for the time period.