By losing James, Mavs still win
Acquiring talented guard could have created bad ripple effect
[By David Moore / The Dallas Morning News]
The Mavericks failed to get their man.
That's not a bad thing. Losing Mike James to Minnesota should actually work to the team's benefit.
For those of you wondering, my brain has not been baked by the hot Texas sun. That normally doesn't occur until early August.
It's not a matter of thinking that Greg Buckner, the player the Mavericks rushed to sign Wednesday, is better than James. It's not even close. When you take ability, age and competitive drive into account, James was the top guard on the free-agent market.
So how can the Mavericks be better off? Because an individual's intensity, intangibles and a 3-point shot don't automatically trump team chemistry.
James would have threatened the development of Devin Harris and the status of Jerry Stackhouse. He would have given the Mavericks another hard-nosed player who coach Avery Johnson craves, but at what price?
James wasn't drafted coming out of college. He played in Austria, France and the Continental Basketball Association before ever setting foot in the NBA. He played for six teams in his first five years in the league.
James blossomed into a starter for Toronto last season, averaging 20.3 points and 5.8 assists. Players who fight that hard and come that far are reluctant to give up a starting job to move to another team's bench, even if that team has a shot to win the championship. James would have come to Dallas expecting to start next to Jason Terry.
And what would that have done to Harris?
The Mavericks gathered at American Airlines Center two days after losing to Miami to clean out their lockers and meet with Johnson before evaporating into the off-season. Harris emerged to say he and Johnson spent more time looking back than looking forward. When asked about his role in 2006-07, he responded, "You can only be held back so long."
Harris will be entering his third season. It's clear he expects to start, and the Mavericks need to see if he can handle the job. The club must determine if he's the point guard of the future or a one-note, high-speed asset who is better off the bench.
Can Harris expand his game and run the team? Can his wiry frame withstand a starter's minutes? The answer to these questions would likely have been delayed if James was on the roster.
Don't get me wrong. Next season is about winning a title, not nurturing the ego of a young player. But how would Harris react to coming off the bench again? Would that interfere with him and the Mavericks reaching their potential?
Yes.
Take this in another direction. Let's say the Mavericks started Harris and brought James off the bench. Ignore for a moment the obvious frustration James would have felt. How would Stackhouse respond?
Stackhouse has embraced his sixth-man role in a way many around the league never thought possible. Suddenly, James is there to take his minutes. James is there to provide the same edge and leadership that Stackhouse does now.
Add James, and you take away Stackhouse's identity on the Mavericks.
Stackhouse is a proud man who has sacrificed for the sake of the team. Ask him to sacrifice even more, and it would not have gone well.
Stackhouse was willing to come off the bench behind Adrian Griffin because he knew what Johnson wanted to do defensively. He will accept coming off the bench behind Harris.
He would not have been happy coming off the bench behind James.
I understand why the club wanted James. I just never understood how it was going to work. Now we don't have to find out.
I'd argue that's for the best.
|